Tag: Fed Rate Hike

  • T-Bills vs Money Market Funds: 4.10% vs 3.53% After the Hike

    T-bills vs money market funds is a 57 basis point question this week. The 6-month Treasury bill yielded 4.10% on September 17, 2026; Schwab’s $249 billion Value Advantage fund paid 3.53%. Bills also escape state income tax, and prime funds do not. ICI reported on September 17 that money fund assets fell $51.97 billion to $7.92 trillion in the week the Fed hiked.

    What happened to money market funds this week?

    Money funds shrank. The Investment Company Institute’s release of September 17, 2026 shows total assets down $51.97 billion to $7.92 trillion for the week ended September 16 — the same day the Fed raised rates. Government funds took almost all of it.

    The ICI breakdown: government funds fell $47.88 billion to $6.53 trillion, prime funds fell $5.17 billion to $1.24 trillion, and tax-exempt funds added $1.07 billion to reach $150.42 billion.

    Read the investor split before you read a narrative into it. Institutional assets dropped $49.88 billion. Retail dropped $2.09 billion — about 4% of the total move.

    That is corporate cash management around the mid-September tax date, not households abandoning the sweep. Anyone selling you this print as a retail exodus is selling you the wrong number.

    The rate backdrop

    The FOMC statement of September 16, 2026 says the Committee “decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point to 3-3/4 to 4 percent,” on a 12-0 vote. U.S. Bank’s market commentary calls it the first increase in more than three years.

    The Fed’s H.15 release for September 17, 2026 puts the federal funds effective rate at 3.88%, the 2-year Treasury at 4.67% and the 10-year at 4.94%. Cash is repricing upward, and the repricing is not uniform across products. That is where the money is.

    T-bills vs money market funds: which pays more right now?

    T-bills, on every maturity. H.15 secondary market rates for September 17, 2026 run from 3.83% at 4 weeks to 4.18% at one year. The two largest money funds we checked pay 3.53% and 3.46%. Bills win by 30 to 72 basis points before tax.

    VehicleYield (as of Sep 17, 2026)Expense ratioState income taxLiquidity
    4-week T-bill3.83%NoneExemptMatures in 28 days
    3-month T-bill3.97%NoneExemptMatures in 13 weeks
    6-month T-bill4.10%NoneExemptMatures in 26 weeks
    1-year T-bill4.18%NoneExemptMatures in 52 weeks
    SGOV (iShares 0-3 Month Treasury)3.65% 30-day SEC (Sep 16); 3.90% avg YTM0.09%Largely exemptIntraday
    BIL (SPDR 1-3 Month T-Bill)3.59% 30-day SEC; 3.90% avg YTM0.1353%Largely exemptIntraday
    SWVXX (Schwab Value Advantage, prime)3.53% 7-day0.34%TaxableSame-day
    SNSXX (Schwab U.S. Treasury)3.46% 7-day0.34%Largely exemptSame-day
    VUSXX (Vanguard Treasury)3.63% 7-day SEC at 6/30/20260.07%Largely exemptSame-day
    Bill yields from the Federal Reserve H.15 release; fund figures from each issuer’s product page.

    One caveat that cuts against the bills. A 30-day SEC yield and a 7-day yield are both backward-looking. SGOV’s 3.65% reading, dated September 16, describes a month that was mostly pre-hike.

    Its average yield to maturity — 3.90% on September 17, per the iShares fund page — is the better forward read. Money fund 7-day yields will climb too as portfolios roll. Check this table again in 30 days; today’s snapshot flatters bills.

    How much does the expense ratio cost on $10,000?

    Between $0 and $34 a year, and the spread is the whole argument. A Treasury bill bought at auction through TreasuryDirect carries no expense ratio at all. A 0.34% money fund charges $34 on the same $10,000 to buy substantially the same paper.

    • T-bill bought direct: $10,000 x 0.00% = $0
    • VUSXX at 0.07%: $10,000 x 0.0007 = $7.00
    • SGOV at 0.09%: $10,000 x 0.0009 = $9.00
    • BIL at 0.1353%: $10,000 x 0.001353 = $13.53
    • SWVXX or SNSXX at 0.34%: $10,000 x 0.0034 = $34.00

    Scale it to $100,000 and the Schwab funds cost $340 a year against SGOV’s $90. Both portfolios hold short Treasury paper. The $250 difference buys you a same-day sweep and a stable $1.00 share price.

    Schwab’s page notes SWVXX’s 7-day yield “reflects the effect of all applicable waivers.” Waivers can be withdrawn. An expense ratio you can only see net of a waiver is a weaker promise than a bill with no fee at all.

    Does state tax change the answer?

    It widens the gap, sometimes past 90 basis points. Interest on Treasury bills is exempt from state and local income tax. Income from a prime fund holding commercial paper and bank obligations generally is not. On a six-figure cash pile that is real money.

    The worked example

    Take $100,000 and an illustrative 9.3% state marginal rate.

    In SWVXX at 3.53%: $3,530 of income. State tax at 9.3% is $328.29. Net income $3,201.71 — an after-state yield of 3.20%.

    In a 6-month T-bill at 4.10%: $4,100 of income, no state tax. After-state yield stays 4.10%.

    The gap is $898.29 a year, or roughly 90 basis points. Federal tax applies to both and does not change the ranking.

    Two conditions attach. The exemption flows through a fund only on the portion of income from direct Treasury obligations, and California, New York and Connecticut require a fund to clear a 50% government-asset threshold at each quarter end before any of it passes through. Check your fund’s year-end tax letter, not its marketing page.

    Are T-bill ETFs like SGOV and BIL a better middle ground?

    For most brokerage cash, yes. SGOV holds $110.45 billion as of September 17, 2026 at a 0.09% expense ratio, with effective duration of 0.11 years. You get bill exposure, state tax treatment and intraday liquidity without managing a maturity ladder.

    BIL is the older, pricier twin: $47.89 billion in assets and a 0.1353% gross expense ratio, per SSgA’s fund page. Both reported the same 3.90% average yield to maturity on September 17. Same portfolio economics, 4.5 basis points of extra cost.

    On $100,000 that is $45 a year for nothing. On measurable attributes — fee, size, identical YTM — SGOV is the cheaper way to own the same thing.

    The ETF wrapper has one cost bills do not: the bid-ask spread on entry and exit, and a share price that moves. A bill held to maturity pays par. An ETF you sell on a bad tick does not.

    Is the 6-month bill worth locking in?

    It pays you 27 basis points over the 4-week bill to give up five months of flexibility. H.15 for September 17, 2026 shows 3.83% at 4 weeks against 4.10% at 6 months and 4.18% at 12 months. The curve is upward sloping across the bill sector.

    That shape says the market expects more tightening, not less. A 2-year at 4.67% against a 3.88% effective funds rate, per the same release, points the same direction.

    The trade-off is mechanical. Roll 4-week bills and you capture each hike within a month. Buy the 6-month and you bank 4.10% now but sit out the next two meetings.

    Money funds sit in between by construction: SWVXX carries a 34.83-day weighted average maturity and SNSXX 47.45 days, per Schwab. They reprice in weeks, not overnight. We covered how that same duration math plays out further along the curve in our look at TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and in the breakdown of what 25 basis points costs bond ETF holders.

    Which cash vehicle fits which investor?

    It depends on three things and only three: whether you need the money inside 30 days, whether you live in a high-tax state, and whether your broker’s sweep is a fund or a bank account. Everything else is noise.

    SituationCheapest fit on measurable termsWhy
    Emergency fund, may need it any dayTreasury money fund (VUSXX at 0.07%)Same-day access, stable NAV, lowest fee in the group
    Brokerage cash, no fixed dateSGOV at 0.09%3.90% avg YTM, intraday trading, 0.11-year duration
    Known expense in 6 months6-month T-bill at 4.10%Highest locked rate, no fee, matures on schedule
    High state income taxDirect bills or a Treasury-only fundState exemption worth ~90bp at a 9.3% rate
    Already parked in a 0.34% prime fundCompare against the bill curvePaying $340 per $100k and giving up the state exemption
    Rankings reflect fee, yield and tax treatment as of September 17, 2026. Not a recommendation to buy or sell.

    Frequently asked questions

    Are T-bills safer than money market funds?

    A bill is a direct obligation of the Treasury. A money fund is a portfolio with an expense ratio, a manager and, in prime funds, corporate credit. Government and Treasury funds narrow that gap but do not close it.

    Why is SGOV’s quoted yield below the 3-month bill rate?

    Because the 30-day SEC yield of 3.65%, dated September 16, 2026, looks backward over a mostly pre-hike month. Its average yield to maturity of 3.90% on September 17 is the forward-looking figure.

    Do I pay federal tax on T-bill interest?

    Yes. Bills are exempt from state and local income tax only. Federal tax applies to bill interest and to money fund dividends alike.

    What happens if I sell a T-bill before maturity?

    You take the market price, which moves with rates. The H.15 secondary market rates quoted here are exactly those prices. Held to maturity, a bill pays par regardless.

    Did the September 17 ICI outflow mean investors are leaving cash?

    No. Of the $51.97 billion decline, $49.88 billion was institutional. Retail funds fell $2.09 billion, leaving $3.11 trillion still parked.

    Is a prime fund’s extra yield worth the extra risk?

    On September 17, 2026 the prime fund SWVXX paid 3.53% against 3.46% for the Treasury-only SNSXX — seven basis points for corporate credit exposure and the loss of the state exemption. The arithmetic does not favor it in a high-tax state.

    How does cash compare with dividend or bank equity exposure now?

    Different risk entirely — cash has no drawdown. For how the same hike reshaped bank equity, see our comparison of XLF against KRE.

    The bottom line

    On September 17, 2026, direct T-bills beat every money fund we priced, on yield and on fee. The 6-month bill’s 4.10% tops SWVXX’s 3.53% by 57 basis points before tax and by roughly 90 after a 9.3% state rate.

    The honest exception is liquidity. If the cash might move next week, a 0.07% Treasury money fund costs $7 per $10,000 and settles same day — a rational price for optionality.

    What is not rational is 0.34% for short Treasury paper an ETF holds for 0.09%. That is the one line in the table worth acting on, and it has nothing to do with forecasting rates.

    This article is journalism, not investment advice. Do your own research before investing.

    Sources

  • XLF vs KRE: Which Bank ETF Wins After the Fed’s Hike

    The Fed raised rates on September 16, 2026, and the cheapest bank ETF is not the one that won. XLF charges 0.08% against KRE’s 0.35% — $8 versus $35 a year on $10,000 — yet KRE returned 14.79% year to date through August 31 against XLF’s 6.26%. The gap is composition, not skill: XLF holds just 28.41% banks.

    Every bank ETF comparison gets framed as a fee fight. This one is not. The three largest ways to own American banks charge wildly different prices and own wildly different things, and the Federal Reserve’s first hike since 2023 has pulled them apart again.

    Here is what each one actually costs, what each one actually holds, and which measurable question each one wins.

    What did the Fed actually do on September 16, 2026?

    The FOMC raised the federal funds target range by 25 basis points to 3.75%–4.00% on September 16, 2026, in a unanimous 12-0 vote. The statement said inflation “remains elevated” and that the action “will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal.”

    It was the first increase since 2023. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh told reporters that “the plain fact is that inflation is too high and has been for too long,” per CNBC’s meeting coverage.

    The Summary of Economic Projections released the same day puts the median federal funds rate at 4.1% for end-2026 and 4.1% again for end-2027. Median PCE inflation for 2026 sits at 3.7%, core PCE at 3.4%, unemployment at 4.1%.

    Markets split. The S&P 500 rose 0.93% on September 17, the Nasdaq finished flat at −0.01%, and the Russell 2000 fell 0.40%, according to TheStreet’s session recap.

    Why a hike matters more to banks than to the index

    A higher funds rate pulls four levers at once for a lender, and they do not all point the same way:

    • Asset yields reprice fast. Floating-rate commercial loans and reserve balances reset within weeks of a hike.
    • Deposit costs reprice slower — but they do reprice. The lag is where net interest margin is made or lost.
    • Securities portfolios take mark-to-market damage. Higher yields cut the value of bonds banks already own. This is exactly what broke several regional lenders in 2023.
    • Credit gets harder. Higher rates raise the odds that commercial real estate and small-business borrowers stop paying.

    Which of those dominates depends entirely on the balance sheet you own. That is why the fund you pick matters more than the sector call.

    Which bank ETF has the lowest fee?

    XLF, at a 0.08% gross expense ratio, is the cheapest of the three by a factor of more than four. KBWB and KRE both list 0.35%. On fee alone there is no argument — but XLF is also the only one of the three that is not primarily a bank fund, which is the catch.

    MetricXLFKBWBKRE
    Full nameFinancial Select Sector SPDRInvesco KBW Bank ETFSPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF
    Gross expense ratio0.08%0.35%0.35%
    Net assets$54.29B (Sep 16, 2026)$6.69B (Sep 17, 2026)$4.13B (Sep 16, 2026)
    Holdings7629158
    WeightingMarket cap, S&P 500 financialsModified market capModified equal weight
    Bank exposure28.41%Banks onlyRegional banks only
    30-day SEC yield1.35% (Sep 16, 2026)2.01% div. yield (Sep 17, 2026)2.19% (Sep 16, 2026)
    30-day median spread0.02%n/d0.01%
    Avg. daily volume12,206,337 shn/d6,521,683 sh
    InceptionDec 16, 1998Nov 1, 2011Jun 19, 2006
    Fee and spec data from State Street (XLF, KRE) fund pages and stockanalysis.com (KBWB), as of the dates shown.

    What a $10,000 position costs per year

    Run the arithmetic on a $10,000 position and the annual gap is $27. That is the whole fee argument, in dollars.

    • XLF: $10,000 × 0.08% = $8.00 per year
    • KBWB: $10,000 × 0.35% = $35.00 per year
    • KRE: $10,000 × 0.35% = $35.00 per year

    Compound it. At a 7% gross annual return over ten years, XLF nets 6.92% and turns $10,000 into $19,524.93. KRE and KBWB net 6.65% and reach $19,037.44. The fee costs you $487.49 over the decade.

    Now put that next to the performance gap below and the fee stops being the headline.

    How much does the bid-ask spread cost you?

    Almost nothing, and here the cheap fund loses. State Street’s fund page lists KRE’s 30-day median bid-ask spread at 0.01% and XLF’s at 0.02%. On a $10,000 round trip that is roughly $1 for KRE against $2 for XLF.

    It is a counterintuitive result: the $4.13 billion fund trades tighter than the $54.29 billion one. KRE’s shares are cheap in absolute terms and heavily used by hedgers, which keeps the book deep.

    For a buy-and-hold investor, spreads are rounding error next to the expense ratio. For anyone trading around the Fed, they are not — and neither fund penalizes you meaningfully. The same logic applied when we broke down XLE versus XOP in energy: the structural exposure decided the outcome, not the trading cost.

    What do you actually own in XLF versus KRE?

    Very different things. XLF’s State Street page shows just 28.41% of the fund in banks as of September 16, 2026. Its two largest positions are Berkshire Hathaway Class B at 12.08% and JPMorgan Chase at 11.85%, followed by Visa at 7.80% and Mastercard at 5.81%.

    XLF is a financials fund, not a bank fund

    Add Visa and Mastercard together and you get 13.61% of the portfolio in payment networks — businesses whose economics have almost nothing to do with the funds rate. Berkshire alone is a larger weight than either.

    If your thesis is “the Fed is hiking, so lenders earn more,” XLF expresses roughly a quarter of that thesis and dilutes the rest with insurance, payments and asset managers.

    KRE is 158 regional banks, near equal-weighted

    KRE tracks the S&P Regional Banks Select Industry Index across 158 holdings using a modified equal-weight method, which State Street describes as giving “unconcentrated industry exposure across large, mid and small cap stocks.”

    Equal weight sounds like diversification. In a single industry it is the opposite: it pushes money down-cap, toward the smaller lenders with the thinnest deposit franchises and the heaviest commercial real estate books.

    KBWB sits between them — 29 large-cap banks, modified market-cap weighted, led by JPMorgan at 8.66%, Wells Fargo at 8.51% and Bank of America at 8.48%, per stockanalysis.com.

    Which bank ETF has performed better after the hike cycle turned?

    KRE, by a wide margin this year, and it is not close. State Street’s data through August 31, 2026 shows KRE up 14.79% year to date on NAV against XLF’s 6.26%. Over one year it is 15.05% versus 8.52%.

    Return (NAV, as of Aug 31, 2026)XLFKRE
    Year to date6.26%14.79%
    1 year8.52%15.05%
    3 years annualized20.69%21.55%
    5 years annualized10.36%5.07%
    Source: State Street fund pages. Returns net of fees, dividends reinvested.

    The five-year row is the one to stare at. XLF compounded at 10.36% a year; KRE managed 5.07% — less than half, for 4.4 times the fee.

    And the flattering three-year number carries a survivorship flavor. A window starting in September 2023 begins after the March 2023 regional banking failures had already wiped out the losses. Start six months earlier and the picture is uglier.

    That is the honest case against KRE: it is a high-beta bet on the exact balance sheets that a hiking cycle stresses hardest. Rising rates help its net interest margin and hurt its bond book and its borrowers, and the market pays that out in both directions. Note that the Russell 2000’s 0.40% decline on September 17 says small-cap risk appetite did not celebrate the hike.

    Which bank ETF pays the most income?

    KRE, and the gap survives its higher fee. KRE’s 30-day SEC yield was 2.19% as of September 16, 2026 against XLF’s 1.35%. On $10,000 that is $219 of income versus $135 — an $84 difference before costs, and $57 after.

    Net of the expense ratio on a $10,000 position: XLF yields $127, KBWB $166, KRE $184. The fee eats a third of KRE’s yield advantage and still leaves it ahead.

    Worth the context: none of these clear a Treasury bill with the funds rate at 3.75%–4.00%. An equity dividend yield of 2.19% is not an income substitute for cash right now, a point that also drove our look at TIPS versus nominal Treasuries.

    Which bank ETF fits which investor?

    Match the fund to the question you are actually asking. If you want cheap, diversified financials exposure, XLF wins on fee and breadth. If you want a pure rate bet, XLF is the wrong tool at any price.

    If your goal is…Best fit on measurable attributesWhy
    Cheapest broad financials exposureXLF0.08% fee, $54.29B AUM, 76 holdings across banks, payments and insurance
    A concentrated bet on lender marginsKBWB or KRE100% banks; XLF is only 28.41% banks
    Large-cap bank exposure with less small-cap credit riskKBWB29 large-cap banks, market-cap weighted, $6.69B AUM
    Maximum sensitivity to regional bank marginsKRE158 names, modified equal weight, pushes weight down-cap
    Highest dividend yield of the threeKRE2.19% SEC yield vs XLF’s 1.35% (Sep 16, 2026)
    Lowest total holding cost over a decadeXLF$487.49 less on $10,000 over 10 years at 7% gross
    Tightest trading spreadKRE0.01% median 30-day spread vs XLF’s 0.02%
    Rankings reflect measurable fund attributes only — fee, yield, spread, concentration. Not a recommendation to buy any security.

    Frequently asked questions

    Is XLF a bank ETF?

    Not really. State Street’s fund page shows 28.41% of XLF in banks as of September 16, 2026. The rest is insurance, payment networks, asset managers and Berkshire Hathaway, which alone is 12.08% of the fund.

    Why does KRE cost more than XLF?

    KRE charges 0.35% against XLF’s 0.08%. It runs a 158-name modified equal-weight index that requires regular rebalancing across small- and mid-cap names, and it manages $4.13 billion against XLF’s $54.29 billion, so there is far less scale to spread costs across.

    Do bank stocks always benefit from Fed rate hikes?

    No. Hikes lift asset yields but also raise deposit costs, cut the market value of bonds banks already hold, and stress borrowers. The 2023 regional bank failures happened during a hiking cycle, not a cutting one.

    What is the difference between KRE and KBWB?

    Size and weighting. KBWB holds 29 large-cap banks on a modified market-cap basis, led by JPMorgan at 8.66%. KRE holds 158 regional banks on a modified equal-weight basis. Both charge 0.35%.

    How much is the Fed expected to hike from here?

    The September 16, 2026 Summary of Economic Projections shows a median federal funds rate of 4.1% at both end-2026 and end-2027, against the current 3.75%–4.00% range. That implies roughly one more quarter-point move and then a hold.

    Which of the three is most liquid?

    XLF by volume, at 12,206,337 shares on average versus KRE’s 6,521,683 as of September 16, 2026. KRE nonetheless posts the tighter median spread at 0.01%.

    Does a 0.27% fee difference really matter?

    It is $27 a year on $10,000 and $487.49 over ten years at a 7% gross return. Real, but smaller than the 8.53-point year-to-date performance gap between XLF and KRE through August 31, 2026. Composition dominates fee here.

    The bottom line

    On cost, XLF wins outright and it is not debatable: 0.08% versus 0.35%, a $487.49 advantage per $10,000 over a decade. On purity of exposure to a hiking Fed, it loses outright — 28.41% banks is not a bank ETF.

    So the choice depends on exactly one thing: whether you want financials or you want lenders. Those are different trades with different drivers, and the labels on these funds obscure that.

    The skeptical read on KRE is the five-year record. A 5.07% annualized return over five years, against XLF’s 10.36%, is what the equal-weight structure delivered through a full rate cycle — and the buyer paid 4.4 times the fee for it. This year’s 14.79% is the same structure working in the other direction. Both are the fund doing what it is built to do.

    With the median projection pointing to 4.1% and Warsh saying inflation is still too high, the deposit-cost lag is the number that decides this, and it shows up in Q3 earnings, not in a fund fact sheet. For the fixed-income side of the same question, see our breakdown of what 25 basis points costs bond ETF holders, and for the broad-market fee math, SPY vs VOO vs IVV.

    This article is journalism, not investment advice. Do your own research before investing.

    Sources