Monthly Portfolio Statistics
January 31, 2025Market Commentary
A hawk at the door
Markets stayed calm in January as liquidity remained easy, even with a new Fed chair nominee seen as a balance‑sheet hawk and policy questions beginning to build.
The most consequential development of the month came with President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next US Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair, ending months (felt like years) of speculation and refocusing attention on the Fed’s balance sheet and policy framework.
His nomination would see him assume Stephen Miran’s seat on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), effectively replacing an unabashed dove with a figure who—despite his stance favoring lower policy rates—showed a distinctly hawkish streak during his previous tenure when inflation risks rose.
While Warsh must still clear the Senate, we see confirmation as largely a formality. A front runner for the role of Chair back in 2018, Warsh in fact does not have an advanced degree in economics, but is a lawyer by academic training. He was appointed by President G. W. Bush to serve as a Fed Governor at age 35. (2006-2011). Warsh has long argued that the balance sheet has grown excessively, warning that continued expansion risks blurring the line between monetary and fiscal policy and eroding the Fed’s credibility.
Within the FOMC, broad support for an ample‑reserves regime suggests that any balance‑sheet normalization would be gradual and likely require compromise on its terminal size rather than a wholesale shift in the monetary framework. Markets are already debating the implications of a Fed leadership that may place less emphasis on longer‑term inflation risks, with expectations tilting toward a steeper yield curve (I see the first round of name-calling at the December FOMC meeting).
From a markets perspective, January, as usual, “came in hot”. Flows were positive and the maturity schedule is heavy, pushing technicals tighter. Spreads have rallied across fixed and float, with fixed looking a bit too proud of itself at 3–4 bps tighter. There’s not much value in extending out the curve unless you enjoy chasing things that don’t want to be caught. Most investors are holding back, waiting for February to offer better levels, while fund durations naturally roll down as everyone resists the urge to buy at today’s highs.
Despite geopolitical theatrics—Greenland resolutions, Canadian tariffs, and the usual pre‑midterm political fireworks—there’s still plenty of cash sloshing around. It’s a seller’s market, plain and simple. And with the administration trying to keep the music playing through the midterms, volatility may show up, but liquidity is not exactly in short supply.
On the funding side, Q1 looks calm. The money market system capacity is expanding as global systemically important bank balance sheets rebound from their Q4 contortions, and banks may opt into lighter supplementary leverage ratio requirements. The Fed is gobbling up T‑bills at a quick clip through Reserve Management Purchases —about $40B a month into April, before slowing to something closer to $25B. Add another $15B from mortgage-backed securities reinvestments, and you’ve got a central bank that’s basically the MVP of the T‑bill market.
Treasury’s April tax haul may lift the Treasury General Account to roughly $1.1 trillion, though the timing of payments and refunds is anyone’s guess. Even with the Fed offsetting some of the drain, reserves could drift down toward $2.8 trillion. Net T‑bill supply for the year sits around $700B, with the Fed expected to buy about $500B of that, leaving the private market an easy $200B to absorb—unless fiscal “surprises” show up. Tariff refunds could add $200B. Stimulus checks—because elections—could add another $300–600B. Pick your adventure.
Another data point to watch is the BLS’s QCEW (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) labor force revisions. Revisions have been coming in lower than expected and showing a labor market that is weaker than the headline non-farm payroll data is showing. If we see another major downward revision, it could mean the Fed starts to think harder about a cut in interest rates. As of right now our forecast is a 25 bps cut at the April meeting, followed by two more cuts in Q3 and Q4. Given the news flow and headline risk, your guess is as good as mine.
Liquidity Fund
AUM for the fund fell in January, as the prior month’s tax receipt inflows were deployed from participant accounts. AUM fell from $3.849 bln to $3.451 bln, a ~10% decrease. The yield of the fund rose 3 basis points to 3.81% month over month. The fund’s yield remained steady as markets are currently expecting the FOMC to remain on hold for the foreseeable future, after their 3 cut insurance cycle in the 4th quarter of 2025. The FOMC feels that we are now closer to neutral rates and that the recent cutting cycle will bring the weakness in labor into a more balanced position as demonstrated by the unemployment rate plateauing near 4.3%. They also remain cautious on the potential effects from stickier than expected inflation, particularly as the potential for more tariff related impacts from geopolitical positioning are announced and could lead to more one off effects. Credit curves have flattened as less future cuts are being priced in by markets, while spreads have tightened over the month, as issuers are fully funded and don’t need to chase funding. The market is currently pricing in the next full cut by the Fed in July, and 1.94 cuts by year end 2026, but the lack of data from the government shutdown has continued to make it more difficult for markets and the Fed to forecast the path of forward rates, leading to potential volatility over the timing and depth of future rate cuts. WAM (weighted average maturity) rose by 6 days to 43 days, and WAL (weighted average life) rose 2 days to 78 days, as positioning was maintained despite the asset outflows. The Floating rate exposure in the fund remained steady at around 23.71%. Exposure to Yankee CD’s remained steady at around 28%, Commercial Paper exposure fell slightly, and exposure to repurchase agreements fell by .90% to ~28%. Liquidity ratio’s for the fund fell, with around 34.32% in 1 week liquidity, and 90 day liquidity near 63.21%.
Key Statistics
| Portfolio | |
|---|---|
| WAM (Weighted Average Maturity) | 42.58 |
| WAL (Weighted Average Life) | 78.49 |
| Distribution Yield (%) | 3.82 |
| 30 Day SEC Yield (%) | 4.41 |
| 7 Day Yield (%) | 3.84 |
| 7 Day Liquidity | 34.32 |
| 90 Day Liquidity | 63.21 |
| Average Credit Quality (S&P) | A-1 |
| Floating Rate Bonds (%) | 23.71 |
Sector Allocation
Historical Performance (Net%)
Short Term Fund
In January 2026, the Short-Term Fund posted a gross total return of 0.28% with income return contributing 0.36% and price return contributing -0.08%. Income return was the largest driver of total return. Treasuries was the largest contributor to income return, returning 0.24% in income return, followed by IG Credit (0.04%), ABS (0.03%), and government related securities (0.01%). For price return, Treasuries was the largest contributor at -0.08%.
Key Statistics
| Portfolio | Benchmark | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration (yrs) | 0.75 | 0.55 | 0.20 |
| Distribution Yield (%) | 3.89 | N/A | - |
| 30 Day SEC Yield (%) | 3.63 | N/A | - |
| Yield to Maturity (%) | 3.68 | N/A | - |
| Spread Duration (yrs) | 0.13 | 0.14 | -0.01 |
| OAS (bps) | 7.12 | 8.06 | -0.94 |
| Wal to Worst (yrs) | 0.79 | 0.57 | 0.22 |
| Average Credit Quality (Mdy/S&P) | Aa1/AA+ | Aa2/AA | - |
| Floating Rate Bonds (%) | 2 | 5 | -3 |
Benchmark: BBG Short Term Govt/Corp Index
Sector Allocation
Monthly Total Return Contribution (Gross bps)
Historical Performance (Net %)
Medium Term Fund
In January 2026, the Medium-Term Fund posted a gross total return of 0.22% with income return contributing 0.35% and price return contributing -0.13%. Income return was the largest driver of total return. Treasuries was the largest contributor to income return, returning 0.24% in income return, followed by IG Credit (0.06%), ABS (0.04%) and government related securities (0.01%). For price return, Treasuries was the largest contributor at -0.13%. With a longer duration profile and more duration risk, the impact of rates increasing was more acutely felt in the Medium-Term fund.
Key Statistics
| Portfolio | Benchmark | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration (yrs) | 2.12 | 1.82 | 0.30 |
| Distribution Yield (%) | 3.89 | N/A | - |
| 30 Day SEC Yield (%) | 3.61 | N/A | - |
| Yield to Maturity (%) | 3.69 | N/A | - |
| Spread Duration (yrs) | 0.35 | 0.43 | -0.08 |
| OAS (bps) | 7.46 | 6.04 | 1.42 |
| Wal to Worst (yrs) | 2.30 | 1.92 | 0.38 |
| Average Credit Quality (Mdy/S&P) | Aa2/AA | Aa2/AA | - |
| Floating Rate Bonds (%) | 2 | 5 | -3 |
Benchmark: ICE BoA Govt/Corp 1-3 yr (ex BBB)