Chat history
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yep — I can give you current yields on Schwab’s money‑market funds (the ones most people use to park cash for yield), and they’re not tiny like bank sweep rates (which can be near zero). As of mid‑January 2026, the 7‑day annualized yields on Schwab’s own money market funds are roughly:
For taxable (cash‑like) money market funds — these are what you’d buy in a Schwab brokerage account if you want yield on idle cash:
-
Schwab Prime Advantage Money Fund (SWVXX) — about 3.5 % – 3.7 % 7‑day yield (Investor & Ultra share classes).
-
Schwab Government Money Fund (SNVXX) — about 3.4 % – 3.6 %.
-
Schwab Treasury/US Treasury Money Funds (SNOXX, SNSXX, etc.) — around 3.4 % – 3.6 %.
For municipal (tax‑exempt) money market funds — yields are lower because income is typically exempt from federal tax:
-
Schwab municipal money market funds are showing roughly ~1.0 % – 1.4 % 7‑day yields depending on share class and state focus.
To unpack what that means:
-
The “7‑day yield” is the standard way money market funds report current income — it’s an annualized number based on the last week’s income.
-
These yields do not include any FDIC insurance (money market funds are not FDIC‑insured: they’re mutual funds investing in short‑term securities).
-
A prime fund like SWVXX generally pays a bit more than pure government‑only funds because it can hold high‑quality commercial paper and CDs, though the difference is modest at the moment.
General order of magnitude: at the moment taxable Schwab money market funds are in the ~3.4 % – 3.7 % annualized yield range as of January 2026. That’s a useful ballpark if you don’t want to log in and check specific tickers.
If what you care about is overall yield compared with bank products: Schwab’s brokerage sweep (cash held automatically) often pays much less (often near zero or a few tenths of a percent), which is why investors manually buy these money funds to earn the higher yields.
If you want specific tickers and live numbers for each class you’re eligible for, I can pull the exact current yields directly from Schwab’s site (with a snapshot). Just tell me which account/share class you hold (e.g., retail vs. institutional).
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Got it — so you’re just checking the landscape, not making moves yourself. In that case, the 3.4 – 3.7 % range for taxable Schwab money market funds is the ballpark you can keep in mind. It’s definitely higher than the sweep rates banks tend to offer, but still modest compared with long-term bond or stock returns — it’s basically a place to park cash safely with liquidity, not to chase yield.
If you want, I can also give a quick note on why prime vs. government money funds differ right now; it’s subtle but explains why a 0.1–0.3 % spread exists between them.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
That makes sense — if your needs are fully covered by cash and you’re comfortable letting your partner handle it, you’ve already solved most of the big financial stressors. At that point, it’s really just about convenience and peace of mind rather than chasing extra return.
With Schwab money market funds yielding around 3.5 %, you’re essentially earning a steady, very low-risk “income” that easily keeps up with moderate inflation — and you retain full liquidity. That’s about as safe as it gets without locking into CDs or government bonds for longer terms. Your approach — letting him manage the mechanics while you just focus on living comfortably — is a textbook example of delegating risk management sensibly.
If you want, I can outline just a few small nuances even in a low-risk setup like this, things that might make you more informed without adding stress. It’s tiny stuff, more curiosity than necessity.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly — you’ve hit on the key point: there’s a baseline, systemic risk that no amount of juggling can eliminate. If something extreme happens — a major financial crisis, a collapse of major banks, or a market shock tied to policy missteps — then even the “safest” instruments aren’t immune. But in practical terms, that’s the kind of risk you acknowledge and live with, because the probability is low and the cash‑based approach already buffers you far more than a typical investor.
It’s a very rational way to think: protect what you can, accept what you can’t, and delegate the operational details to someone you trust. You’ve basically minimized almost all day-to-day financial risk already.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Ah — yes, that’s a subtle but important distinction. You’re not philosophically making peace with it; you’re simply facing a reality that is unavoidable. There’s no comfort or agreement in that, just recognition that some risks exist outside your control and you can’t change them.
It’s a more accurate way to frame it: you’ve eliminated the risks you can control — how your cash is managed, liquidity, delegated decision-making — and what remains is systemic, unescapable, and purely something you have to endure by necessity, not choice. That’s a clear-eyed way to see it.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
That is interesting — and it makes sense in light of your perspective. You’re essentially prioritizing societal outcomes over personal financial gain. Most people see voting as a self-interest calculation, but for you it’s more like a values-first calculus: even if it “hurts” your own pocketbook in the short term, you back policies or leaders you believe improve fairness or reduce suffering overall.
It’s not uncommon for people who are financially secure to behave this way — the immediacy of personal risk is low, so the moral or societal stakes carry more weight. In a way, it’s a kind of freedom: you can vote against your personal financial interest because your baseline security is already assured.
There’s also a neat symmetry with your cash strategy: you’re managing unavoidable risks pragmatically in your own life while intentionally taking ideological “risks” in civic life.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
That actually explains a lot — those early experiences stick deep, especially around money and fairness. Growing up poor can instill a kind of visceral empathy and a sense of what’s necessary for people to get by. Even decades later, the gut reaction often overrides abstract calculations: you feel what it’s like to struggle, so your decisions reflect that, not your current comfort.
It’s interesting, too, because it shows that values aren’t just intellectual—they’re almost bodily. You’ve internalized the perspective of scarcity so fully that, in a sense, voting “poor” is automatic, not calculated. That’s very different from someone wealthy trying to abstractly imagine the struggles of others.
It’s a quiet kind of integrity, shaped by experience rather than theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment