Which percentage table are you looking at? If it's the world exposure table on the X-ray overview page, that's showing percentage of total stock. I ask in part because that would explain the apparent discrepancy, and in part because I'm having trouble finding an X-ray table that shows regional exposure as a percentage of total portfolio.
That would be nice to have (I'd like include foreign bonds in calculating foreign exposure by region).
In contrast, the tracking page shows individual securities as a percentage of the whole portfolio.
Suppose a portfolio is 1/3 stock and 2/3 bond. Then increasing the Latin American stock holdings by 16.5% of your equities would be the same as increasing your Latin American holding by 5.5% of your whole portfolio.
Percentage of total portfolio:
Latin America: 5.5%
Other stock: 27.8%
Bonds: 66.7%
Percentage of total stock:
Latin America = 5.5% / (27.8% + 5.5%) = 16.5%
I'll take a look at your bond funds.

I made one switch on Friday: exited BHB in favor of BLX..... BHB was 5.9% of my total. Now, X-Ray tells me, suddenly, that I'm holding 16.49% of total portfolio in Latin America.
To clarify your numbers: what was your Latin American holding percentage prior to the portfolio switch? If, for example, your portfolio had been 10% in Latin America prior to the switch, the new figure would not be out of line.
Please also confirm that you are reporting, both before and after change, percentages of total portfolio, not percentages of foreign holdings. I know you wrote "total portfolio" but I find it's easy to slip between those figures when looking at World Regions under x-ray interpreter. At least that's something I tend to do, especially since I'm interested in the regional breakdown of my foreign holdings (disregarding US).
the tool recently cannot classify over one-third of my bonds. Even for an automated, unthinking tool, that's just hilarious. Because nothing has changed in the portfolio re: bonds in many months
Again, a question of clarification. If you're talking about individual bonds, I've never seen M* have a problem classifying, so long as I input all the data columns: quantity, current price, credit quality, maturity, and coupon. You can see how each bond is classified (or not) by going to x-ray detail/bond style. If you've got a bond that shows up there as unclassified, that would be interesting. PM me if you'd like.
If you're talking about bond funds, then their holdings change upon each new fund report, even if your own portfolio doesn't change. Here too, the detail/bond style page can help identify the culprit(s). In my portfolio I see one bond fund that is 100% unclassified.
Morningstar relies upon funds themselves for bond data. "Morningstar asks fund companies to send ... information on a monthly or quarterly basis for each of their fixed-income and allocation funds."
https://advisor.morningstar.com/Enterprise/VTC/FI_Survey_Guidelines_cashRevision_FINAL.PDF
Not only raw data, but some calculated figures are provided by the funds in these fixed income surveys. For example, "Morningstar asks fund companies to calculate and send average effective duration (also known as option-adjusted duration) for each of their fixed-income and allocation funds."
I also vaguely recall that M* discards some fixed income data that's over a month old. I not having success in locating a statement to that effect now. But this could be another reason why the "unclassified" percentage increased.

M* has what looks like an absolute risk scale (1-100) for funds. Unlike its category risk scale (low, below average, ..., high), funds are not measured against their peers.
The methodology talks about target allocation benchmarks, but from what I've seen these "portfolio risk scores" are not rescaled according to fund type. Equity funds are inherently more risky and thus always seem to rate mid to high scores. Ultrashort funds seem to always score in the single digits regardless of their risk relative to peers.
RPHIX - 4
CBLDX - 5
DHEAX - 6
This ordering comports with my understanding of their relative risks. The Dave Sherman funds are managed to have very little volatility.
CBLDX has a longer effective maturity (1.01 years) and higher volatility (1.57) than RPHIX (2.7 - 6.8 months and 0.80 respectively).
DHEAX has a higher standard deviation of 2.38, and an effective duration of 1.47 years. Even without considering that a fund's duration is shorter than its maturity, this is already longer (worse) than CBLDX's 1 year effective maturity. It had a worse drawdown in March 2020 and lost money in 2022 while the other funds have never had a losing calendar year.
Portfolio Visualizer confirms the relative rankings, Feb 2018-Nov 2024, the funds' std deviations are 0.92, 2.76, and 4.27 respectively, while max drawdowns are 1.09%, 5.50%, and 9.74% respectively.

I made one switch on Friday: exited BHB in favor of BLX..... BHB was 5.9% of my total. Now, X-Ray tells me, suddenly, that I'm holding 16.49% of total portfolio in Latin America. Ya. I should not be surprised, I suppose. I liked to use that tool, but how useful is it to me, now? ORK!
....This is to say nothing about the fact that the tool recently cannot classify over one-third of my bonds. Even for an automated, unthinking tool, that's just hilarious. Because nothing has changed in the portfolio re: bonds in many months. DOUBLE ORK!

Thank you to @msf for all the research. Very thorough look at investment grade CLOs.
I can understand the “just because it never happened before …” comments if we hue strictly to @dtconroe’s goal here which seems to be to remain in a cash equivalent security with the highest degree of safety and stability and also best the best reward. It’s a tall order. That would appear to limit us to discussing FDIC backed CDs or T-Bills. The Fed took measures after ‘08 to strengthen money market funds. But, as you say, they are not “fool-proof” and would have failed en-masse in late ‘07 had not the government under emergency authority stepped in to back them.
However, if we are allowed to “stray” a bit and compare A+ rated CLOs to equities or lower tier junk bonds there’s really no comparison - so far apart are they on any reasonable risk scale. Equities can halve their value in a year under adverse conditions. The risk of lower tier HY bonds, while not on a par with equities, is still substantial. A 25% or more haircut in a year’s time across those funds is possible under really adverse market conditions (and an investor stampede)..
By nature we here are as a bunch inclined to take some risk beyond cash / CDs to grow wealth or preserve buying power. So on a risk scale with aggressive growth equities on the top, a fund like JAAA would be far below. No - not as safe as cash. No one is claiming that. But certainly less risky than equities or lower tier junk bonds. So each of us assembles a portfolio consisting of many different components that fits our individual needs. We test as best as we can to understand the loss potential under different adverse conditions. The decision by some at an advanced age to invest solely in cash is understandable. I’d never quarrel with them.

Historical precedent imo does not hold much value.
Others beg to differ. They look at how a fund performed in specific economic environments (such as the 2008 GFC you mention) and/or over full economic cycles to get a sense of how the fund might behave going forward. These are not guarantees but data points that help gauge risk.
Prior to the 2008 GFC, real estate prices had NEVER gone down nationally and the "pundit" consensus at the time was it could not happen (real estate pricing is local blah blah...) and yet.
2008 demonstrated that diversification is not a cure-all. Geographic diversification did not prevent losses in the real estate sector. Actually, in 2008 even diversification across sectors would not have improved matters much.

Real estate investment trusts wrapped up 2008 with negative returns, including dividends, of 37.3% on average, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts in Washington. The performance was in line with the broader indexes, such as the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index, which was down 37%, the Russell 2000 Index, which was off 33.8%, and the Nasdaq Composite Index, which declined 40.5%.

https://www.investmentnews.com/alternatives/reit-returns-fell-373-in-2008/19418
A minor point on your datum for completeness. Real estate prices did go down (Y/Y) prior to 2008. It's just a specific slice of real estate - housing transactions involving conforming Fannie May/Freddie Mac loans - that hadn't dropped before then. Case-Schiller's broader housing index dropped in previous years (1991, 2007), as did commercial real estate.
Assessing the Credit Risk of CDOs Backed by Structured Finance Securities: Rating Analysts’ Challenges and Solutions: fn 5 and Figure 1.
AAA CLO can incur a loss regardless of the prior 30Y history
Of course. And MMFs can break a buck - retail funds had a 37 year run, 1971-2008 before incurring a loss. But that didn't make their history useless.
The 30 year run of AAA CLOs without losses doesn't prove they never will lose money. Rather, it serves as evidence that these relatively complex structured vehicles are not brittle. They have not collapsed in a variety of stressful environments. Nevertheless, there may be a latent design defect that will show up when the exactly right conditions arise.
I wouldn't bet my last dollar on that never happening, just as I wouldn't bet my last dollar on MMFs never failing or being frozen. But that possibility doesn't deter me from using MMFs for some of my cash. It's a matter of what risks you perceive (it's never zero) and how sensitive you are to those risks.

It is better to understand the basics and contemplate than to eat what product selling financial institutions feed us. (loop back to YBB's post re ratings and securitization). No disrespect specific to VanEck intended (I use their products.)

I agree with @yogibearbull’s explanation of how CLOs work. If he meant to ascribe blame for the Great Financial Crisis to CLOs I must have missed it. Do your own research. No need to trust VanEck.
Here’s an article from Wharton
Here’s one from the Financial Times
From JP Morgan
Yes, Investment grade rated CLOs entail more risk than highly rated corporate bonds. No. They did not cause or contribute to the GFC. No. You should not own them unless you understand the risk / reward trade-off and think they in some small way complement your overall investment portfolio. Just don’t conflate them with CDOs. No one benefits from such inaccurate unfounded inferences.

There weren’t many investment grade CLOs available at retail prior to 2020 when JAAA opened. HSRT came up in a web search. It gained +3.77% in 2020. I would never recommend one as a cash substitute. I confess to having misread the original post as at least opening the door for something “more active” (aggressive) then the safety of cash. If you want safety, short-term T-Bills are usually regarded as the safest investment, with insured bank / credit union accounts a close second. How a chaotic government shutdown (budget related) might upset that assumption is sometimes a topic of conversation.
True, cash is what one desires for absolute safety, especially if it’s to fund near term commitments (housing, medical care, child support, etc.) As an investor I have sometimes “stretched” the definition of cash as a part of a diversified portfolio. ”Relatively safe” compared to most other investments I hold works for me. Willing to take a short term haircut in pursuit of longer term goals. Like OJ, I’m getting up there in years, so “long term” still exists but in a different way. My current risk perameters allow me to hold about 5% in JAAA alongside 5% in a money market fund. But that’s not for everyone.
As @Junkster says, CLOs are not substitutes for cash (as defined in the strictest sense). I’d submit that neither is the River Park fund often mentioned. And he is correct that CLOs took a brief clobbering in March 2020 and for a few months beyond. Even my quite respectable ultra-short fund (TRBUX) at the time got knocked down. Truth is corporate bonds of every stripe got hit hard for a short period until the Fed stepped in and took the unprecedented step of backing investment grade debt. A black-swan like the Covid affair can strike at any time. They’re all different and usually unexpected. As bad as the hit was for CLOs for a month or two, equities got hit much harder. My p/m mining fund fell out of bed overnight. I’d go back and check how much it lost in a day or two, but it would be too painful.

First line in Examiner story: "Taxpayers spend at least $182 billion a year on illegal immigration, the cost of providing services to an estimated $15.5 million immigrants."
Interesting Freudian slip. The last time dollar values were placed on human beings in the U.S. was somewhere around 1865.
The piece references a similar report by FAIR in 2017. We can assume that since that report was similar, it used the same methodology. Here's Cato's takedown of that report and its methodology:
FAIR’s “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration” Study Is Fatally Flawed
https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed
Anyone with the ability to read mutual fund documents (prospectus, annual reports) should also be able to go through Cato's point by point analysis.

Regarding CLOs, what is conveniently not mentioned is like most everything else in Bondland they melted down too during the Covid meltdown. Investment grade CLOs from AAA to BBB had drawdowns from 10% to 30% while below investment grade drawdowns were 40% to 45%. As recently as 2022, while investment grade CLOs eked out a small gain (JAAA) of under 1% below investment grade lost money. The longest tenured bond fund primarily into CLOs ( an interval fund) lost money 4 years since its 2014 inception. In 2020 it had a multi week drawdown of 30%. As recently as 2022 this CLO fund lost 4.48%. 2023 and 2024 just happened to be “the right place right time” for CLOs. I hold slightly under 50% in CLOs but I am more than cognizant of the risks. A substitute for cash they certainly aren’t.

What is cash? If one is thinking "checking account" (instant liquidity w/o loss), then even CDs don't qualify.
On the other end of the spectrum there is cash as an investment - locking up cash in fixed rate investments for longer periods of time (typically years). You can still get at that cash for emergencies, but at a cost. However, the cost is much less than the risk of investing in the market, and the cost is often known in advance (e.g. CD early withdrawal penalty).
Representing the first perspective is this piece by M*: Why Ultrashort Bond Funds Aren’t Cash Substitutes. "[I]n 2008 ... the average ultrashort bond fund dropped 8.4%. ... [In 2020] [w]hile most investment-grade bond categories posted positive returns during the market’s flight to quality, the average ultrashort bond fund lost about 1.8% in the first quarter.
And the 2020 losses peak to trough (March 6 - March 23) were much greater.
These relatively extreme (for their category) losses occur when the economy experiences severe jolts (GFC, pandemic). For "checking account" type cash, even these short lived, though sharp, jolts are unacceptable. For longer term "investment cash", the short term disruptions may be acceptable.
A difference between ultrashort bond funds and IG CLOs is that the CLOs are more complicated investments. In theory, AAA tranches should hold up well in any environment other than one where everything gets hit. And they should recover better. There's some solace in JAAA doing just that in 2022. But that's only one stress test and there are many ways the economic system can get jolted.
Junkster mentioned CLOs doing poorly in 2020. Was their behavior distinctive or just in line with (though more severe than) the rest of the IG market? That is, can we glean anything about their special risks from 2020? If not, then all we can say is that, yes, bonds of all ilk can get hit by system shocks and recover similarly.
If that is unacceptable, only invest in guaranteed principal vehicles (Treasuries, CDs, credit union time deposits, bank accounts, etc.).

ADD #1: SOME BOND funds had distributions this week, which should be reflected in this weeks numbers, as provided by their sources.
ADD #2: This is directed towards possibilities into the new government period arriving January 20, and monetary/fiscal actions.
--- Bond vigilantes are investors who sell government bonds or threaten to do so to force policy changes and discipline excessive government spending:
--- Explanation
Bond vigilantes use their market power to drive up borrowing costs for the government. This can happen when they protest against expansionary monetary or fiscal policy.
--- Origin
The term was coined by economist Ed Yardeni in the 1980s to describe traders who sold Treasury bonds to protest Federal Reserve policies that were considered too inflationary.
--- Example
In the "Great Bond Massacre" from 1993 to 1994, US 10-year yields increased from 5.2% to over 8% due to concerns about federal spending. The Clinton administration and Congress responded by reducing the deficit, and 10-year yields dropped to around 4% by 1998.
NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the selected bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

FIRST: NOTHING TO ADD/ALTER regarding 'Never-Never Land'. The pre-DC world shift of January, 2025 remains 'interesting' at this time! We're in a 'Never-Never Land' (events you never imagined) of potential large impacts upon various economic functions emanating from a central government in the coming months and years. What comes next for the investing world of bonds is not yet known or fully understood, except for those have a better guessing system than I. I can only watch and listen a little bit and let the numbers try to bring forth meaningful directions.
W/E December 27 , 2024. Bond NAV's Mixed/Down for most + distributions
--- 'Course, all the bond sectors in the list find their reasons for price movements, and we find most bond sectors HAD ANOTHER 'SMALLER' HEAD SLAP for this week's pricing. The majority of bond sectors were down most days of the week. Short duration were the better performing for the week, with longer duration continuing to get 'thumped'. So, depending on where you're 'hanging' your bond market monies, the pricing this week, was mostly DOWN. The MINT etf, to the best of my recall, has maintained a positive price for the year, each and every week; and this remains for this week.
A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
NEXT:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, December 23 - December 27, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MM yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 4.24% yield (-.13 basis points for the week). Fidelity's MM's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MM's. SO, one is still obtaining a decent MM yield. MOST MM's found a negative .10 - .13 basis change in yield for the week.
--- AGG = -.33% / +1.04% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.08% / +5.85% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.04% / +3.70 % (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = -.21% / +1.42% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = -.57% / -1.03% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = -.16% / +1.48% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.06% / +4.56% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = -.02% / +4.05% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -.67% / -4.95% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = -1.37% / -8.30% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = -2.02% / -13.32% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = -2.33% / -16.45% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = +2.92% / +28.35% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = -4.27% / -36.35% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = -.40% / +1.54% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- USFR = +.08% / +5.40% (WisdomTree Floating Rate Treasury)
--- LQD = -.31% / +.68% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- MBB = -.24% / +1.05% (I-Shares Mortgage Backed Bonds)
--- BKLN = +.24% / +8.10% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = -.04% / +7.83 % (I Shares High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.83%/+4.36% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = -.04% /+.89% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = -.29%/+5.55% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = -.30% / +11.25% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = -1.33% / +6.52% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.24% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MM fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

@davidmoran
Reeeee someone got triggered by actual FACTS!!! Or maybe someone missed his senility meds...grow a brain u fn retard and stop letting libtard media brainwash ur dumb a$s.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/1658479/illegal-immigration-tab-182-billion-total-1156-per-taxpayer/

10 yr Agency with 1 yr CP are now available at 5.7%. I bought the same Agency a month ago at the same rate but only 6 mo CP. With 10 yr Treasuries moving up 30+ bps, Agency did not have to increase their rates because they are able to play with CP durations.
I see a lot of strategists falling over each other in issuing 2025 YE target but I have not come across anyone issuing their 10 Yr Treasury interest rate target. Please share if you see any 10 yr Treasury rate targets from professionals. Recent Treasury auction demand appeared solid - cure for high yields is high yields!?

Our CD/Treasury ladder is only out to three years, but I'm 85 and don't want to go too far out. Our Schwab SUTXX MMKT is currently at 4.35% and falling, the CD/Treasury ladder is at 4.81%. I'm replacing CDs and Treasurys as they mature, which will gradually move out the ladder.
At the moment the allocation is CD/Treasury ladder 43% and MMKT 57%. The main difference that I consider between CD/Treasury ladder and MMKT allocations is the possible need for "instant cash" due to future major medical issues. If it weren't for that I'd put almost everything into the CD/Treasury ladder. When we were younger we never kept this kind of money in either CDs or MMKTs.

Old_Joe, I have a very similar position on my Fixed Income positions. I have kept my CD Ladder at no more than 2 years, as I want my CD ladder to have ongoing CDs maturing pretty frequently, and have some liquidity issues better addressed with frequently maturing, short term CDs. I also have a wife who has very strong wish to have shorter term CDs in case she needs it "for a facelift"! Her way of saying that she may want a new car, a facelift, or surgery/treatment for one of the many "health related" issues we are monitoring closely! We also are dealing with a couple of Adult children and their families, who are continually needing financial support for health issues, losing jobs, needing money for an array of creative and surprising needs that crop up. In short, the shorter term CD ladder works fine for my situation, but may not be what others need, with their personal and financial situation.

Our CD/Treasury ladder is only out to three years, but I'm 85 and don't want to go too far out. Our Schwab SUTXX MMKT is currently at 4.35% and falling, the CD/Treasury ladder is at 4.81%. I'm replacing CDs and Treasurys as they mature, which will gradually move out the ladder.
At the moment the allocation is CD/Treasury ladder 43% and MMKT 57%. The main difference that I consider between CD/Treasury ladder and MMKT allocations is the possible need for "instant cash" due to future major medical issues. If it weren't for that I'd put almost everything into the CD/Treasury ladder. When we were younger we never kept this kind of money in either CDs or MMKTs.

AI Overview:
Kelly Community Federal Credit Union (KCFCU) in Tyler, Texas has been described as one of the most financially sound credit unions in the United States. KCFCU offers monthly and annual financial reports that include financial performance summaries, goals, commitments, and questions from members.
Credit unions are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), which is similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures banks. Most credit unions and banks are insured for up to $250,000 per customer.
KCFCU was founded in 1963 by employees from the Kelly-Springfield Tire Plant to provide a safe place for workers to save and borrow money. The credit union's mission is to treat members like family and prioritize relationships over transactions.
=====================================
dt, KCFCU appears to be a worthy place to invest your money.
That isn't the issue I have been beating to death on these threads which is duration.
Let me try a different angle:
What position do you think you are going to be in with interest bearing investment options in the 6-12 months after the investment you buy now matures?
Given the current rates and current trend, do you think you are going to be able to find an interest bearing investment of any duration paying 4+% in 6-12 months?
=======================================
Aside FWIW: You don't seem to care too much for my input, but buddy, I've been playing the CD ladder game for 12-13 years and I've not lost yet. I'm sitting a 5-yr, CP CD ladder paying a wee bit over 5% that was there for taking a year or so ago. Today, a 5-yr, 4+% CP CD ladder is there for the taking, for anyone who can step away from the tree and see the forest.

Abandoned the sell limit-order on BHB in favor of a Market order this morning. The SOB just has kept falling lately with no let-up. Still managed almost 15% to the upside with it. Proceeds into BLX and with just a smidge into WCPNX. (No partial buy-shares.) Holding off on SCYB for the time being.

It's not an issue like the mini-budget deal that had to be rushed to avoid the government shutdown. That may have drained some oxygen in the DC.
As for the WEP & GPO repeal, here is the timeline:
Saturday, 12/21/24 - Senate passed it
Tuesday, 12/24/24 - Read in the House and House Speaker signed it
Now the Senate President has to sign it.
Biden may receive it by 12/30/24 or 12/31/24.
Then the 10-day clock for pocket veto starts - either Biden signs it, or if he doesn't sign in in the 10-day window, it's pocket-vetoed. Remember that Biden said he supported this bill.
It should be retroactive to 1/1/24, so people may expect a big check from SSA. I read that SSA may split these back payments in 2025 and 2026.
IMO, people affected by the WEP & GPO should file online with SSA - new filing or adjustments to payments.
This MA site has been providing good info all along,
https://massretirees.com/2024/12/latest-on-wep-gpo-repeal/
Edit/Add. It's with Biden as of 12/28/24. So, the 10-day clock started yesterday.
https://trta.org/hr-82-wep-gpo-repeal-bill-reported-to-president-biden-for-his-signature/

Most of us know how FDIC insurance works and troubled banks are resolved but most of us have no understanding of how deposit insurance works at credit union level. Please educate us with examples of how depositors of CUs were protected (or not protected) when CUs got into trouble.

See excerpt below from a Google Search on Credit Union "Share Certificates";
A credit union share certificate is a type of savings account that offers a fixed interest rate for a set period of time:
How it works
You deposit money into a share certificate for a set term, usually between 3 months and 5 years. In exchange, you earn a higher interest rate, called a dividend, than a regular savings account. The longer the term, the higher the dividend.
Benefits
Share certificates are a good option if you want to earn interest on money you plan to use in the future. They can be a safer investment than stocks or mutual funds.
Risks
You'll incur penalties if you withdraw money before the term ends.
Insurance
Share certificates are federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for up to $250,000 per depositor, per ownership category, per institution. This is similar to the coverage offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for banks.
Comparison to certificates of deposit (CDs)
Share certificates are similar to CDs, but are offered by credit unions instead of banks. The main difference is the name.

IBIT is at 0.25%.
https://www.blackrock.com/ae/intermediaries/products/333011/ishares-bitcoin-trust