[HN Gopher] Launch HN: Palus Finance (YC W26): Better yields on ...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: Palus Finance (YC W26): Better yields on idle cash for
startups, SMBs
Hi HN! We're Sam and Michael from Palus Finance
(https://palus.finance). We're building a treasury management
platform for startups and SMBs to earn higher yields with a high-
yield bond portfolio. We were funded by YC for a consumer-focused
product for higher-yield savings. But when we joined YC and got our
funding, we realized we needed the product for our own startup's
cash reserves, and other startups in the batch started telling us
they wanted this too. We realized that traditional startup
treasury products do much the same thing: open a brokerage account,
sweep your cash into a money market fund (MMF), and charge a
management fee. No strategy involved. (There _is_ actually one
widely-advertised treasury product that differentiates on yield,
but instead of an MMF it uses a mutual fund where your principal is
at considerable risk - it had a 9% loss in 2022 that took years to
recover.) I come from a finance background, so this norm felt
weird to me. The typical startup cashflow pattern is a large
infusion from a raise covering 18-24 months of burn, drawn down
gradually. That's a lot of capital sitting idle for a long time,
where even a modest yield improvement compounds into real money.
MMFs are the lowest rung of what's available in fixed income. Yes,
they're very safe and liquid, but when you leave your whole
treasury in one, you're giving up yield to get same-day liquidity
on cash you won't touch for six months or more. Big companies have
treasury teams that actively manage their holdings and invest in a
range of safe assets to maximize yield. But those sophisticated
bond portfolios were just never made accessible to startups. That's
what we're building. Our bond portfolio holds short-duration
floating-rate agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which are an
ideal, safe, high-yielding asset for long-term startup cash
reserves under most circumstances.[1] The bond portfolio is
managed by Regan Capital, which runs MBSF, the largest floating-
rate agency MBS ETF in the country. Right now we're using MBSF to
generate yields for customers (you can see its historical returns,
including dividends, here:
https://totalrealreturns.com/n/USDOLLAR,MBSF). We're working with
Regan to set up a dedicated account with the same strategy, which
will let us reduce fees and give each startup direct ownership of
the underlying securities. All assets are held with an SEC-licensed
custodian. Based on historical returns, we target 4.5-5% returns
vs. roughly 3.5% from most money market funds.[2] Liquidity is
typically available in 1-2 business days. We will charge a flat
0.25% annual fee on AUM, compared to the 0.15-0.60%, depending on
balance, charged by other treasury providers. We think that
startup banking products themselves (Brex, Mercury, etc.) are
genuinely good at what they do: payments, payroll, card management.
The problem is the treasury product bundled with them, not the
bank. So rather than building another neobank, we built Palus to
connect to your existing bank account via Plaid. Our goal was to
create the simplest possible UX for this product: two buttons and a
giant number that goes up. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_gwSqtnxM We are live with early
customers from within YC, and accepting new customers on a rolling
basis; you can sign up at https://palus.finance/. We'd love
feedback from founders who've thought about idle cash management or
people with a background in fixed-income and structured products.
Happy to go deep in the comments. [1] Agency MBS are pools of
residential mortgages guaranteed by federal government agencies
(Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac). It's a $9T market with
the same government backing and AAA/AA+ rating as the Treasuries in
a money market fund. No investor has ever lost money in agency MBS
due to borrower default. It's worth acknowledging that many people
associate "mortgage-backed securities" with the 2008 financial
crisis. But the assets that blew up in 2008 were private-label MBS,
bundles of risky subprime mortgages without federal guarantees.
Agency MBS holders suffered no credit losses during the crisis, and
post-2008 underwriting standards became even stricter. If anything,
2008 was evidence for the safety of agency MBS, not against it.
The agency guarantee eliminates credit risk. Our short-duration,
floating-rate strategy addresses the other main risk: price risk.
Fixed-rate bonds lose value when rates rise, but floating-rate
bonds reset their coupon based on the SOFR benchmark, protecting
against interest rate movements. [2] This comes from the
historical spread between MMFs and floating-rate agency MBS; MMFs
typically pay very close to SOFR, while the MBS pay SOFR + 1 to
1.5%. This means that if the Federal Reserve changes interest rates
and SOFR moves, both asset types will move by about the same
amount, and that 1-1.5% premium will remain. _This post is for
educational purposes only and does not constitute financial,
investment, or legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee
future results. Yields and spreads referenced are approximate and
based on historical data._
Author : sam_palus
Score : 28 points
Date : 2026-03-06 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
| _hugerobots_ wrote:
| This would be a really nice product to start ups outside the US
| tech belt. Hubris of treading water in longterm a-series SUs
| elsewhere, this could be a viable solution if accessible.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| Not the OP but curious why you think so?
|
| If this gives an extra 1% per se, I imagine that is more worth
| it to a company fresh off a large fundraise with a ton of cash
| in the bank.
|
| Startups otherwise are lean and won't hold enough cash to get a
| meaningful return from the 1%.
| mushufasa wrote:
| I spent time looking into this a couple years ago as a startup
| founder with this problem. We are in the finance space so I saw
| how bad the treasury options were with our bank, given their fee
| cut versus plain T-bonds at the time. I looked into which
| brokerages allowed us to setup self-directed accounts (many banks
| don't offer that for businesses at all). I found the "correct"
| approach. But then there would be more paperwork and back and
| forth to set up that new account, then manage transferring money
| around when we needed it, logging into a different system. On a
| ski trip a friend in finance told me "you're being dumb, if your
| bank offers you a treasury plan with a one click button, even if
| it's not perfect, click that button now!" So I did.
|
| Then, the benefit of saving 1-2% extra versus spending my time
| trying to actually running the business and doing things with our
| money in the real world, has meant I have never looked back. 1-2%
| on millions of dollars is significant but it's not nearly as
| impactful as finding Product-Market-Fit in your actual business.
|
| All this to say: I'd be in your target market but I'm simply not
| interested in a "marginally better" treasury system versus just
| going with my bank's options that make it easy for me.
| Esophagus4 wrote:
| Similar to something like Jiko?
| sam_palus wrote:
| That's fair. But to your point, the problem we see is that
| banks' treasury products take advantage of founders who
| (rightfully) don't want to think about their treasury yields.
|
| That's why we designed Palus to be as simple as possible to
| use. If you check out our demo video, you'll see it's super
| straightforward. Setup takes <5 min and then you don't have to
| think about it anymore. We're also building out automatic sweep
| functionality, so then you REALLY won't have to think about it.
|
| Given the significant increase in returns on a large treasury,
| we think it's worth the small amount of effort.
| hahahacorn wrote:
| Is this available for Non Profits?
|
| I've had an easy time setting up treasury accounts with Rho &
| Mercury for 2 co's, but the latter gave me a no-go on an account
| for a non profit.
| sam_palus wrote:
| Yep! Fill out the signup on our website and we'll be in touch
| Lionga wrote:
| Any higher yield comes from higher risk. If any startup feels the
| startup is not risky enough and really wants to have higher yield
| for higher risk just put the money in a Bond ETF that suits your
| risk appetite. Crazy that YC funds things that make a simple
| thing more complex and more costly for zero upside.
| sam_palus wrote:
| The bond funds offered in existing startup treasury products
| aren't suited for startups' long-term cash reserves. They
| either offer low-yield money market funds, or bond funds that
| aren't well suited for capital preservation on the order of
| months the way startups operate (see here for an example of
| VFSTX, the fund offered by one of the leading startup treasury
| products today: https://totalrealreturns.com/n/USDOLLAR,VFSTX?s
| tart=2021-01-...)
|
| Our goal is to make sophisticated treasury management easy for
| startups. With Palus, they don't need to manage a brokerage
| account, or handle treasury ladders, or anything like that.
| TZubiri wrote:
| If the value proposition is better interest rates, it sounds like
| Palus would get that by giving up their cut, what would be your
| monetization strategy then?
| mogonzal wrote:
| Lucky for both of us, the value prop isn't just "we are
| offering better interest rates on the same instruments because
| we gave up our cut"
|
| It's actually "we found a way better set of instruments for
| long-term cash that allow us to offer better interest rates
| without giving up the cut altogether"
|
| That being said, we do think the current treasury products can
| be a little predatory with their rates. For example, Rho
| charges a variable rate that peaks at 0.6% for any deposit of
| $2M or less. We think that's crazy so our margin is a flat
| 0.25%, no asterisks or fine print.
| SigmundA wrote:
| Nice to have some higher yield options.
|
| There are banks out there that will do business savings accounts
| not much below this (2.85%) while keeping things safe (FDIC
| insured) and liquid.
|
| https://www.liveoak.bank/business-savings/
| sam_palus wrote:
| Good find- 2.85% is great for a business savings account.
|
| All that is to say: businesses shouldn't treat all their cash
| the same way, especially when they have significant runway. The
| exact breakdown depends on the business, but typically you can
| think of it as three different buckets:
|
| 1) You have short-term cash, which you need immediately. This
| is where you'd use a checking account. This pays very close to
| 0% but you have immediate access. Most businesses might keep a
| few weeks' cash here.
|
| 2) You have short-term reserves, which is what you'd use in the
| next couple of months. This is where most companies might use a
| savings account (or even put it in a money market fund), where
| you know you can get the cash into your checking account in ~1
| day. This pays between 2.5% and up to maybe 3.75%. Each
| business will structure their cash differently, and some might
| not even bother having this bucket.
|
| 3) Long term reserves, which you won't touch for months. This
| is where companies try to optimize yield, and where Palus is
| valuable. Even here, your money is safe, and in Palus's case
| can usually be in your checking account within a couple of
| days, but getting extra yield on long-term reserves can be
| super valuable.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| You're still exposing yourself to duration risk, right? What's
| the average duration of your short-term MBS portfolio?
|
| MBS bonds pay a risk premium for a reason, you're virtually free
| of credit risk, but you're assuming interest rate/duration risk
| (not particularly relevant if duration is low, I'm not familiar
| with the duration of short term floating rate MBSes)
|
| Also, what happens in a Silicon Valley bank type scenario, let's
| say you have lots of withdrawals and you have to liquidate at
| under face value. Who eats the loss?
| JackFr wrote:
| They said "short duration" not "short term". The real risk is
| from spread duration rather than simple interest rate duration,
| and assuming they don't lever up, that should be minimal.
|
| The beauty of MBS floaters is that you're relatively
| insensitive to prepayments because to a first approximation
| they're always priced at par.
|
| From an investor standpoint, as they say, you're making maybe
| SOFR + 1.5%. That's not a very sext return. But let's say your
| banks repo desk is willing to finance the purchase at 5% down.
| Then you can lever up your investment 20x and now you're a big
| shot making SOFR+30%, which is very sexy. But what's that, when
| your lever like that, a tiny decline in price wipes out your
| entire stake (Welcome to 2008).
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Thanks for the informative reply, that makes sense.
| sam_palus wrote:
| Very well put. And yes, to your point, we don't lever up.
|
| And yes, SOFR + 1.5% isn't very sexy, but we're competing
| against existing treasury product that use money market funds
| and pay SOFR (or less, after fees). So that 1.5% is
| meaningful.
| yarrowy wrote:
| What's the advantage of this versus opening a Fidelity account
| and buying the same product?
| mogonzal wrote:
| Super fair question haha. I'm gonna flip this question first
| because I think it perfectly frames the current landscape of
| startup/SMB treasury products
|
| Say you (like many startups) use Mercury Treasury, Rho
| Treasury, Brex Treasury, etc. Most of these list somewhere
| exactly what funds they buy into. Why not just open a fidelity
| account and by them yourself?
|
| The answer is pretty clearly ease of use. Easy to move money
| from your bank account (likely also with them) to their
| treasury, easy to set up rules like ("if my bank balance falls
| below $X then transfer $Y from treasury"), stuff like that
|
| We provide all of these features too! We are not at all asking
| people to bank with us or spend the time/friction of actively
| managing their deposits
|
| So if the ease-of-use is the same and the yields are roughly
| 40% more than the generic money market wrappers out there, we
| think it's a no-brainer
|
| (EDIT: adding mention that I am OP's co-founder)
| collingreen wrote:
| Startup founder: at this point you need to overcome the stigma of
| fly by night fintech wrappers sitting on top of banking and the
| exceptional, outsized risk that creates for consumers a la
| synchrony and things like yotta essentially losing millions of
| customer money with no recourse because a discrepancy between
| those two layers. 1% higher yield is nowhere near juicy enough
| for me to literally bet the company on and that's close to what
| would happen if you lost my entire last round (or locked it up 6
| months beyond when I need it). Starting with yc companies as a
| trust indicator is helpful although yc switching to a shotgun
| "fund hundreds of companies per batch" approach means the yc
| label carries a LOT less weight than it used to (since they are
| no longer paying much attention to any one investment).
|
| I like smart finance plays and I hope you can do that and stand
| out from the glut of finance bros who have (and continue to)
| muddied the water (poisoned the well?) with this approach of
| "tech on top if actual finance companies".
|
| Good luck out there!
| sam_palus wrote:
| Fair! Growing user trust is definitely one of the biggest
| challenges building in this space.
|
| For what it's worth, we don't hold users' funds ourselves; we
| use an SEC-regulated custodian (Alpaca) with the assets legally
| held in your name. And we're working on building transparency
| measures, like detailed views into your account's specific
| holdings of underlying assets with verifiable attestations,
| third-party auditing, and frankly any other measures that our
| customers would want us to.
|
| I know putting company money into a new product requires a lot
| of trust. Like any product you're still exploring, I'd
| encourage you to start small, try us out, and grow your
| position over time as we earn your trust. And if it helps you
| trust us, I'd be happy to get on a Zoom call or meet IRL.
| uniclaude wrote:
| Far from me the idea of criticizing a founder starting something
| to help other startups. That's amazing. However, the post is not
| really accurate! Are you sure that all these MBS pools have the
| same government backing as Treasuries? Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae,
| and Freddie Mac are not equal. Are the additional risks (spread
| risk, liquidity mismatch, and risks related to the mortgage
| structure that even Regan discloses!) worth the tiny extra yield
| above money market funds? Startups have to deal with uncertainty
| all the time, that's the nature of business. Principal loss, and
| liquidity issues are not things you should have to deal with as a
| startup. However, providing options to startups is always great,
| and I think this is a great direction!
|
| Again, I hope this doesn't come as negative, but I'm not sure
| this is making the risk clear. I am not sure I would suggest my
| portfolio companies to risk their treasuries unless I am sure
| they're fully understanding the risks associated. Do you intend
| to provide anything else?
| sam_palus wrote:
| These are good points.
|
| On the government backing: it's a fair nuance to point out. In
| a technical sense, Ginnie Mae has the explicit full faith and
| credit guarantee while Fannie/Freddie are GSEs with an implicit
| one (and are under government conservatorship). But in
| practice, the distinction isn't really meaningful. In practice,
| the federal government has always guaranteed these loans (even
| in 2008, when they were under the most stress they've ever
| been, and there have been significant reforms as a result).
| There's no reason to think they'll ever stop. The scenario
| where the GSE guarantee fails is essentially the collapse of
| the US economy well beyond anything we saw in 2008 (in which
| case frankly we all have much bigger problems).
|
| On the risks you mentioned: 1) Principal loss: given the
| guarantees re credit risk, and the fact that we use short-
| duration floating rate instruments to protect against price
| risk, this shouldn't really be a concern. 2) On spread risk:
| there can be slight variation in spread, mostly affecting
| yields; this is why we say "4.5-5%" yields given there's some
| variability in that range (but all far above money market). 3)
| On liquidity: agency MBS is the second most liquid fixed-income
| market in the world after Treasuries. In nearly all
| circumstances, liquidity is 1-2 business days. This product is
| really meant for long-term cash reserves; our idea is that
| companies should stop treating 6+ month cash the same as next
| month's payroll.
|
| Ultimately we encourage founders to do their own research and
| understand what they're doing with their money. We wouldn't ask
| anyone to put short-term cash in a MBS portfolio (in the future
| we'll probably offer some other options too). But for long-term
| cash they're sitting on, the extra yield can be meaningful to
| the business: on $5M, it's an extra $50k-75k per year, or half
| a junior engineer's salary. Given the minimal risk, I think
| it's worthwhile for a lot of companies.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| You should write more pieces like this and display them more
| prominently than an HN thread.
|
| Your market is founders who have put money in an MMF and
| stopped thinking about it, not the people evaluating
| different optimization strategies day-to-day. So
| acknowledging the risks and saying "here's exactly when you
| should consider us" is exactly the kind of thing that helps
| overcome that uncertainty hurdle that results in choosing the
| simplest, safest option.
|
| Founders should obviously do their own research, but that's
| asking the customer to proactively expend effort digging
| through future marketing copy to evaluate _your_ product.
| They 're not realistically going to do that as well as they
| should and the people who don't need to probably aren't your
| target market.
| sam_palus wrote:
| Yeah that's a great point. We do have some pieces up
| already (https://www.palus.finance/info/safety) but plan on
| adding way more.
|
| Honestly this HN post has been really insightful in knowing
| what questions founders will want us to answer.
| andrewljohnson wrote:
| We use Mercury's treasury account to get yields on cash, and what
| appeals to me is it is easy to manage. I don't have to worry
| about setting up processes to move money around and it's
| integrated with my bank account, and we wouldn't want to switch
| even for a higher yield... the operational burden is more
| important to us than yield.
|
| I think the yield is about 3.2% based on how we set it up to be
| as liquid as possible. We could have accepted less liquidity for
| more like 3.8%
| mogonzal wrote:
| Hey Andrew thanks for the feedback
|
| We know that the main barrier to switching is just time and
| ease of use, so we deliberately built this to have the same
| operational burden as using your current treasury product
|
| Palus links straight to your bank account just like Mercury,
| and we'll also allow you to set up rules for moving money
| around!
|
| That said, if there's any other features that really keep
| people tied to their current products we want to know about it.
| Our goal here is to build something that actually cares about
| the fact that you're a startup with limited time to care about
| yields, and not just throw your money in a generic fund and
| forget you exist
| zie wrote:
| At .49% expense ratio, plus whatever your cut is, it won't be a
| very cheap product. Even SPAXX, the default holding of cash at
| Fidelity is cheaper at .42% ER.
|
| There is no free lunch in investing, so that extra yield comes
| with extra risk. Be that duration, credit, etc. That's not to say
| MBS's don't have their place, but I would never claim people's
| mortgages as equivalent to cash in any shape or form. Your
| website claims MBSF is safe for 3+ month durations, but that is
| not the avg duration of MBSF held securities, so you are
| encouraging duration risk.
|
| I haven't read the full prospectus on MBSF, so I'm not an expert
| on that product, but it seems expensive and complicated, which is
| not what you want for cash and cash-like things. This should be a
| hard pass for literally everyone.
|
| Meanwhile you can hold something like ICSH[0] or SGOV[1] with
| expense in the .09% or lower range(i.e. for every $10k we are
| talking $9/yr or less in fees). SGOV is 0-3 month max duration,
| so it's perfect for holdings in the 3 month time-frame. If you
| need longer time frames you can buy govt bond ladders in whatever
| time frame you want.
|
| What your product _should_ have been: You specify duration for
| each of your buckets, and then you pick appropriate, cheap index-
| based investments that are cheap and easy to reason about for
| each of the buckets.
|
| 0: https://www.ishares.com/us/products/258806/ishares-
| liquidity... 1:
| https://www.ishares.com/us/products/314116/ishares-0-3-month...
| sam_palus wrote:
| The 4.5-5% yields we quote are net of expense ratio. Then our
| cut is 0.25%, comparable to the 0.15% to 0.6% charged by
| Mercury, Rho, etc. And we're working on bringing that expense
| ratio down as we scale.
|
| Functionally speaking, short-duration floating-rate agency MBS
| trade at such a stable NAV that they're perfectly sufficient
| for long-term cash, and many large companies trade these.
|
| MBSF is complex in the way that basically any fund is complex,
| but the strategy it employs is actually quite simple since it
| only trades a single asset class. Yes the expense ratio is
| higher than some other funds but the additional yields more
| than make up for it.
|
| ICSH and SGOV are great funds too, and make sense for shorter-
| term cash, but they pay significantly less than we do.
|
| Broadly speaking, our product is meant for exactly the kind of
| cash strategy you're thinking about: multiple buckets with
| duration spread accordingly. At the moment, our platform is
| just for the long-term bucket. But in the future, we might add
| additional shorter-term buckets too (maybe even with ICSH or
| SGOV).
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| Did YC finally stop investing in AI companies only?
| mogonzal wrote:
| Haha just wait until we add a chatbot in the corner of your
| window that's constantly pinging you to deposit more money
|
| Name suggestions are appreciated
| kjksf wrote:
| Anyone can buy STRC with 10-11% yield, paid monthly. Full
| liquidity (i.e. can sell anytime).
|
| 5% return is not competitive.
| sam_palus wrote:
| STRC has only been around for less than a year. I don't know
| too much about what assets it holds (and maybe it's worth me
| looking into it), but those kinds of returns are generally a
| sign that you're taking on a lot more risk than you think (even
| if it hasn't had a major price decrease yet).
|
| We're competing against long-term cash held in a money-market
| fund (an instrument optimized for short-term use with same-day
| liquidity) earning 3.5%. In that context our yields definitely
| are competitive.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Congrats on the launch!
|
| Do you work with non-US companies? I have a company in Estonia,
| and hold some reserve cash (mix of dollars and euro) on a Wise
| account. It pays 2.20% variable APR, but I'm starting to explore
| other options :-)
| sam_palus wrote:
| Thanks! Yes we do. Sign up or book a call on our site and let's
| discuss.
| kristianp wrote:
| > Agency MBS holders suffered no credit losses during the crisis,
| and post-2008 underwriting standards became even stricter.
|
| I suppose the Agency MBS holders still had losses during the GFC.
| Would your clients wear any losses in MBS price of there's
| another housing downtuurn or recession? Why not diversify into
| other bonds as well?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-06 23:00 UTC)