Saw blurp on cnbc chase 9.5% cd cannot find online (maybe variable least 200k) . Anyone know cusip?

As msf posted a while ago, ML also offers Fidelity mm funds >4.6% (at the moment).
No sweep functions (meaning it takes a little planning to move your moneys about), but otherwise a fine thing to use and quite a departure from the past.
In related news, my BoA heloc is now >7.4%, unbelievably, which is slightly higher than my first house mortgage, 51y ago.

Schwab Bank pays whopping 0.45-0.48% on its checking and savings accounts.

WaPo: The FreeDumb caucus calls on McCarthy to "suspend debt negotiations" and focus on getting the House's previously passed bill through the Senate.
“There should be no further discussion until the Senate passes the legislation,” a statement from the Republican group said.
Passing anything in the House to stop a debt default is no slam dunk, no matter what the negotiators come up with. The lunatics are still in charge of the asylum. Are there any "moderate" House Repubs left to stop this suicide pact?

No one size fits all. If we get back to 15% on CDs like under Volker I’ll take a look. Generally, I’d rather invest in things than in cash. That’s just a personal prejudice born of 50+ years watching markets. Now the problem for me with locking up money in a CD is that it limits my ability to move in and out of what I believe are more profitable investments while that money is tied up. I’ll take the 4+% on cash Fido currently pays in return for being able to pick up equities anytime I want. While you’re tied up in a 3 year or 5 year C/D some hard assets or equities you watch could fall by 25%, making them an attractive buy. Do the math and you’ve actually lost money if you buy those assets a few years later after the prices have rebounded, even considering your “profit” from the C/D. When you lock up cash for any length of time you pay an opportunity cost.
Let’s not put all bond funds in one basket / trash bin. There are, by many accounts, some good opportunities in EM bond funds for folks willing to take on some added risk. If you like to “play” the fixed income market, buy and sell something like a GNMA bond fund as the 10 year fluctuates up and down in yield. Mostly, that’s govt. backed paper. High yield and convertible bond funds allow a good manager to profit from his/her research and analytical skills in markets that skirt the line between equity and traditional bond. I would not simply write those types of investments off as “just another bond fund.” And some international bond funds profit from playing the FX markets - making better returns possible beyond the coupon rates on those bonds. I used to have an anger problem too. Got better after Ted departed - although I miss him greatly.

There was indeed a Japan Fund (SJPNX, etc; its catchy logo was stylish JF) that had many subadvisors over its life, 1990s-2014, Scudder, Fido, Nomura. In 2014, it was merged into Matthew's Japan MJFOX.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141007005176/en/Matthews-Japan-Fund-Merger-with-the-Japan-Fund-of-Nomura-Partners-Funds-Inc.-to-Close-on-October-20-2014

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/19/asia-markets.html
Around the time I bought DODGX in 1991, I also bought The Japan Fund. I can't remember the ticker. I thought it would be a classic blood-in-the-streets purchase. In those days people convinced themselves that Tokyo real estate was worth more than everything in these United States. And then their market crashed hard.
After many years, I think it was sold because we needed tires for one of the vehicles. Saved us from taking equity out of the house in Marin county. And it got the kids to daycare, and us to work. So I don't regret the tradeoff.

Junk I own:
PRCPX. +3.33%. YTD
TUHYX. +4.52%
HYDB. +1.14%
****************
YTD is a long way from 5 years. But there are the dividends in the meantime. If rates stand still or come down, junk will do OK at the very least, along with a stock recovery. I'm always fully invested. The cash I hold is held in the funds I own. I'm aware of 5% CD rates. The mechanics of initiating such accounts is the bugga-boo for me.
...And of course, my own mileage certainly HAS varied---- by a huge amount--- to the downside in TUHYX. At least I'm "in the black" with the other two.

@stillers, you seem to have quite an anger problem. Bottom line is I never once said a CD ladder wasn't a good idea. I tried to covey that bond funds also may be turning the corner and starting to give decent returns - for anyone who chooses that investment path. Even at your dismay and scorn.

Ah, c'mon man!
If I really had an anger problem and dealt in scorn, I'd ask you if you think the Bills will EVER win a Super Bowl! Or even ever get there again and, well, lose again!
And I'd be sure to give you 0:13 to reply, make sure all your players have their helmets, and warn you about drifting too far to the right!
My only purpose on this thread was to point up that bond fund investors generally seek 4%-5% TRs. And that those rates of return are currently available in non-callable CDs, with higher rates having been available at the peak.
Also, many investors don't seem to understand that those incredibly unsexy CDs are there for the taking, if they could only get out of their own way.
So while bond fund investors over the next 5 years will be putting in time and effort trying to get their 4%-5% TRs, I'll be putting on a slew of golf courses, knowing that we have a 5+-yr CD ladder in place of those bond funds that is paying in excess of 5%.
No need for anyone to read that again s-l-o-w-l-y, unless of course you still don't get it.
BTW, I NEVER stated that CDs were the only option. But hey, it's the internet, so feel free to parrot it over-and-over-and-over again and it will become a fact (to some/most).

A lot of this spring’s US regional banking crisis can be explained this way:

• 1) Banks bought a lot of Treasury bonds and other US government-backed securities when interest rates were low, paying roughly 100 cents on the dollar for them.
• 2) Interest rates went up a lot, driving the prices of those bonds down to, say, 85 cents on the dollar.
• 3) Banks had big losses on those bonds, eating through a lot of their capital.
• 4) People noticed, stocks went down, deposits fled, some banks failed and others have looked shaky.

One solution to this crisis would be that, if the bonds magically went back to being worth 100 cents on the dollar, the banks would mostly be fine again. That seems improbable, though I guess one interesting mechanism would be if the banking crisis caused enough of a recession to drive long-term interest rates back to where they were in 2020. Then the bonds would be fine, though probably the banks would have credit losses.
Another solution to this crisis would be that, if the US government just bought the bonds from the banks at 100 cents on the dollar, the banks would mostly be fine again. Of course then the government would have paid 100 cents for stuff worth 85 cents, which seems bad. But through the magic of held-to-maturity accounting, you can sort of wave your hands and pretend that it’s not bad. If the government paid 100 cents today for a bond worth 85 cents, and then held it until it matured, it would get back 100 cents. (Plus interest, though not very much.) In some accounting sense, the government would not lose any money: It would get a below-market rate of interest on its money for the next few years, but it would technically get all of its money back.
And in fact this is kind of how the banks thought of these bonds: They were often in the banks’ held-to-maturity portfolios, meaning that they didn’t need to be marked down when they lost value due to changing interest rates. It’s just that, when people notice this stuff and deposits flee, you can’t hold the bonds to maturity, because you have to sell them, at a loss, to pay back depositors. But the government is not funded by short-term deposits, so it really can hold the bonds to maturity.
And in fact this is kind of, a little bit, a solution that the government hit on: In response to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the US Federal Reserve announced a new Bank Term Funding Program that would lend the banks 100 cents on the dollar against bonds worth 85 cents on the dollar. This is not the same thing as buying the bonds at 100 cents on the dollar — the banks, rather than the government, are still economically on the hook for the losses — but it is motivated by the same sort of thinking. “Eventually these bonds will pay out 100 cents on the dollar, so it’s fine to lend 100 cents on the dollar against them, even if they are worth 85 cents today.”
But nobody has actually embraced a program of “the government will just buy the bonds back at par to make the banks healthy again,” because it is kind of an extreme transfer of losses from banks to taxpayers, even if you can wave your hands a bit and pretend it isn’t. But here’s this from Andrew Ackerman at the Wall Street Journal:

Banks have spent the past week or so testing what would be a clever gambit: Paying billions of dollars they collectively owe to replenish a federal deposit insurance fund using Treasurys instead of cash.
The idea—floated to regulators and lawmakers by PNC Financial Services Group and supported by others—could allow banks to take securities that are currently worth, say, 90 cents on the dollar, and give them to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. at full price. That would effectively shift losses clogging the banks’ balance sheets to the FDIC, according to people familiar with the proposal. ...
Proponents say nothing in the law says FDIC fees have to be paid in cash, so the agency could change its rules. They say the move, if greenlighted by the FDIC, would help the banking system address the way rising rates over the past year have saddled lenders with billions in losses on their portfolios of bonds. Those losses helped sink Silicon Valley Bank in March, sparking turmoil across the banking sector. …
Supporters say the government would hold the securities until maturity, allowing them to recover principal and interest on the debt. The government would suffer no losses, they say.

The FDIC has spent billions of dollars on its bank rescues — which is also a transfer of losses from banks to the government to make the banking system more solvent — but it is getting the money back by charging a special assessment to be paid by about 113 big banks. If the banks pay the assessment with Treasuries that are worth 90 cents on the dollar, but that count for 100 cents on the dollar, then they get a little discount on the assessment and get to move unpleasant assets off their balance sheets.
Why stop there? They should pay their taxes in Treasuries. Really what they should do is pay executive bonuses in Treasuries: “We’re giving you a $1 million bonus, technically it is only worth $850,000 but if you hold it to maturity it’s a million.”

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1110502/000158064223002777/hussman-sif_497e.htm
497 1 hussman-sif_497e.htm 497
A close up of a logo
Description automatically generated with low confidence
May 18, 2023
HUSSMAN INVESTMENT TRUST
HUSSMAN STRATEGIC INTERNATIONAL FUND
Supplement to the Prospectus dated November 1, 2022, as amended
Effective immediately, Hussman Strategic International Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Hussman Investment Trust (the “Trust”), is terminating the public offering of its shares. Shares of the Fund are therefore no longer available for purchase by investors. As discussed below, all outstanding shares of the Fund will be redeemed at their net asset value per share determined as of the close of business on June 27, 2023 (the “Redemption Date”).
The return of capital by way of a redemption of all outstanding shares of the Fund was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) based on the Board’s determination, in consultation with the Fund’s investment adviser, Hussman Strategic Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), that failure to redeem all shares could have materially adverse consequences to the Fund and its shareholders given relevant factors including the Fund’s small asset base and limited prospects for the Fund to reduce expenses and increase cost efficiencies based on assets from new shareholder investments. Through the Redemption Date, the Adviser will continue to reduce its fees and to reimburse expenses of the Fund as necessary to limit the ordinary operating expenses of the Fund to 2.00% annually of the Fund’s average daily net assets (as described in the Prospectus).
All shares of the Fund will be redeemed on the Redemption Date, and the proceeds of the redemption of shares held in each shareholder’s account will be sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as may be directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and other tax deferred retirement accounts (as discussed below). Between the date of this Supplement and the Redemption Date, the portfolio securities of the Fund will be sold in an orderly manner as necessary to satisfy redemption requests and to effect redemptions of shares on the Redemption Date. This liquidation of the Fund’s portfolio holdings will reduce, and eventually eliminate, the Fund’s normal exposure to foreign equity investments. Accordingly, during the liquidation process through the Redemption Date, the Fund will not be pursuing its stated investment objective.
Shareholders continue to have the right to redeem their Fund shares or to exchange those shares for shares of any of the other Hussman funds on each business day prior to the Redemption Date. Redemptions (including the redemption of shares in connection with an exchange) will be processed at the net asset value per share of the Fund next computed after receipt of the redemption or exchange request. Shareholders wishing to exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of another Hussman fund should obtain and read carefully the prospectus of the Hussman fund into which they wish to exchange shares before submitting an exchange request.*
The redemption of shares of the Fund, and the exchange of shares of the Fund for shares of another Hussman fund, as described in this Supplement, will each for tax purposes be considered a sale of your Fund shares. Shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure proper treatment of the redemption or exchange on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested in the Fund through an IRA or other tax-deferred retirement account should consult the rules regarding reinvestment of their redemption proceeds. In order to avoid the taxation of redemption proceeds in the current tax year, such shareholder may choose to authorize, prior to the Redemption Date, a direct transfer of their retirement account assets invested in the Fund to another IRA or tax-deferred retirement account. Generally, a shareholder will have 60 days from the Redemption Date to invest their redemption proceeds in another IRA or tax-deferred retirement account to avoid treatment of the redemption proceeds as taxable income for the current tax year.
If you have any questions regarding your investment, or the redemption or exchange of Fund shares as described in this Supplement, please call 1-800-487-7626.
Investors Should Retain this Supplement for Future Reference
*Before deciding whether to exchange your shares of the Fund for shares of another Hussman fund, you should consider carefully the investment objective, risks, and charges and expenses of the other fund. The prospectuses for the Hussman funds are available at www.hussmanfunds.com or can be obtained by calling 1-800-487-7626. Please read the applicable prospectus carefully before investing. Purchases of shares of a fund acquired by means of an exchange will be effected at the net asset value of that fund next determined after receipt of your exchange request.

im thinking about selling BAMBX and buying fidelity money market fund SPAAX. as of 5/18/23 bambx is only up .11% while spaax is up 1.62%. this money is in a non retirement account. im looking for saftey of principle but i would also like to make a little return on my money. im not used to seeing this kind of a return on a money market fund and i dont know how long it can last.

Barron's article title says all: "Schwab Raises $2.5 Billion in Bonds to Shore Up Finances"
Nothing new in the article that is likely behind a paywall.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/charles-schwab-bond-offering-5be6b0a0?mod=bol-social-tw

Only m-mkt funds and T-Bills are "cash" alternatives. No other fund, including the ultra-ST bond funds, can formally serve that purpose.
But many posters do use ultra-ST and short-terms bond funds for liquidity. I was surprised that several ST bond funds in 2022 (possibly the worst year for bonds) had drawdowns of -10% vs -5% that could be expected.

During the last 6 months, RPHIX gained $2.84%. If it continues, this will be 5.7% per year with minimal risk. If not a secret, can you tell us about better opportunities that you see now? Or do you have in mind what may happen with other funds when the rates go down?

As I stated, I used RPHIX as a "cash alternative....in a market where income instruments were unattractive". RPHIX is a Bond OEF, with no protections for my cash, and any projections about it performing nice and smoothly for the next 6 months, is a guess and a gamble. My preference for "cash alternative" investments, with some protections, are CDs paying over 5% and MMs paying close to 5%, both of which are much more protected and secure than a bond oef, that may or may not preserve my principal as a "cash alternative".
My choice for an investment, for my cash, is based on my personal circumstances and criteria, for various components of my portfolio, and I do not tell anyone else what they should do, to meet their personal circumstances and investments for their cash.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 5/17/23
For the week ending on 5/17/23, bearish remained the top sentiment (39.7%; above average) & bullish remained the bottom sentiment (22.9%; low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (37.4%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -16.8% (low). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (64+ weeks, 2/24/22- ); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were mixed, bonds down, oil up, gold down, dollar up. The debt-ceiling issue must be resolved by 6/1/23. The regional banking crisis continues. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1040/thread

Your local library system may provide access to Morningstar Investment Research Center (MIRC).
MIRC made available via my library includes Portfolio X-Ray.
Portfolio X-Ray shows how the top 50 net stock holdings are distributed across a portfolio
and can be used to check duplicate holdings between two or more funds.
This tool may not list all duplicate stocks since only the top 50 holdings are displayed.
I'm not aware of any free tools which will list all duplicate holdings.

I was looking at my stake in SEQUX today since I am moving it to Fidelity. Its top holding is Schwab at about 7.5%.
Might be time to realize the tax loss and rearrange the deck chairs. :)

During the last 6 months, RPHIX gained $2.84%. If it continues, this will be 5.7% per year with minimal risk. If not a secret, can you tell us about better opportunities that you see now? Or do you have in mind what may happen with other funds when the rates go down?

Per WSJ this evening ... read what you will into it.....

"Schwab Taps Credit Markets To Raise $2.5 Billion In Debt"
Schwab issued $1.2 billion of bonds due in 2029 and $1.3 billion of bonds due in 2034, according to a person familiar with the matter. The bonds due in 2029 were issued at a 5.643% yield, or 2.05 percentage point higher than U.S. Treasurys, while the notes due in 2034 were sold at a 5.853% yield or 2.27 percentage point spread.
By comparison, the company sold 10-year bonds a little more than a year ago at a yield of around 2.9%.
In its filing, Schwab said it would use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, including “investments in our subsidiaries and supporting business growth.” A Schwab spokeswoman declined to comment.
< - >
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schwab-taps-credit-markets-to-raise-2-5-billion-in-debt-97dd0ef8?mod=hp_listb_pos1