Doing it for you, with the same conclusion (spread, anyway):
https://www.i-orp.com/bequest/index.html
(With nonretirement-account losses able to 'detax' any gains for years to come, I have been pondering recently, as I raise cashflow from both rollovers and Roths per ORP, whether the taxfree future of my Roths really matters.)

I’m doing it all wrong.
First, I’ve allowed my Roths to outperform my Traditional IRAs over the years. Roths now comprise over 65% of IRA assets. Worse yet, if I need $10,000, I take $5,000 from the Traditional and $5,000 from the Roth. This leaves an immediate tax liability on $5,000 (instead of $10,000).
But always willing to learn something from the links board.

Relative to the funds in the article (and the additional funds mentioned here), RPHYX doesn't look so impressive these days. It has an SEC yield of 2.10%. Clearly it's having difficulty meeting its objective of beating the 1 year Treasury (currently 2.4%, as noted by Lewis) by 200 - 400 bps.
Currently, Treasuries are essentially flat from 1mo to 7 years. With that sort of curve (actually dipping in the middle), it makes little sense to me to try to eek out yield by going longer than ultrashort. Also, buying a one year CD or Treasury could serve as a hedge against rates dropping in the short term.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=yield
Instead of keeping day-to-day money in a low/no interest checking account, one can keep money in Fidelity's SPRXX (2.25% SEC yield) or FZDXX (2.37% SEC yield) and write checks/pay bills directly from that fund. (Fidelity automatically sells the MMF if you have no cash in your core/transaction account.) Every penny helps.

I belatedly agree with @msf. I searched and couldn’t find where it’s illegal to access these sites through the back door. Nor has anyone alleged that it is. More of a personal comfort level I guess. I’d rather pay for the goods I consume.
Subscriptions to top quality publications are dirt cheap considering the quality of writing and analysis one can receive for $15-25 monthly. For around $40-50 monthly I receive 2 top quality national newspapers 7 days a week (ad free) delivered to my Kindle reader, plus 2 top-notch science magazines monthly, also on the Kindle, plus one free audiobook of my choosing every month (great for falling asleep at night). And my $$ goes to support good journalism. What a deal.
Tend to agree with @Sven on a couple points. Admire LB’s writing. And, I’ve little use anymore for Barrons. Received it for the past year for their $52 special rate and rarely picked it up. I suspect some of that may be a degradation of the content over the past 50 years and some of it a maturation of the reader over the same time span.

My thinking falls somewhere in the cracks here.
I will only read content at a third party site if it is licensed there. For example, T. Rowe Price used to provide select WSJ articles online to Personal Services investors (back when that required "only" $100K invested). Some articles are reprinted on MarketWatch (another Dow Jones company).
I would not hack into a site merely because I had another channel to access the same content. For example, some publications (WSJ, Consumer Reports, etc.) sell paper subscriptions separately from online subscriptions. IMHO having a paper subscription does not justify accessing the content online if one does not subscribe to that medium.
That said, I consider using well publicized back doors (google, anonymous browsing) fair game. These portals to the content sites are provided by the vendor. Barron's, as sister pub to WSJ, could easily shut down anonymous browsing if it did not have a business purpose in making it available.
It's not as though the publishers aren't gaming us at least as much as some may think they're gaming the "system".
https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/after-years-of-testing-the-wall-street-journal-has-built-a-paywall-that-bends-to-the-individual-reader/

FYI: There was a time when earning 1% from a short-term bond was acceptable. Five years ago, the average one-year Treasury bill yielded less than 0.2% and many money-market funds paid essentially nothing. Ultrashort-term bond funds, which took on a little more risk, but paid a bit more, were one of the few viable options for conservative investors seeking income from their cash.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/higher-rates-produce-more-short-term-bond-alternatives-51554512253?mod=past_editions

I'm writing about categorization of the allocation within funds, which M* totally overhauled some years ago and wrecked a good system.
By analysis, I meant a general term, in other words, drilling down to give an investor what they need to make decisions. I didn't specifically mean analyst reports or star ratings or M*'s approach to fund credit ratings. Sorry that one stray word sent you off on a wild goose chase.
In addition, I've run across many cases where M* data is stale, and the only way to get up-to-date info in that case is thru the provider. That in some cases could be the provider's fault, but the fact remains.

I'd suggest skipping M* entirely when researching bond fund allocation. It's easy to find almost any fund's allocation, using their info, and that info usually has the distinct advantage of being basically accurate. M* bollixed up their bond analysis several years ago, and it's really not worth the time using them for bond allocation info any longer.

You seem to be conflating "allocation" with "analysis". M* reports funds' allocations exactly as reported by the funds. On the other hand, M* calculates its own weighted average of credit quality. It does this because a simple average isn't meaningful.
To understand this, think about star ratings. M* grades on a bell curve. That makes sense because fewer than 20% of funds perform at 'A' (5*) level, while lots more than 20% perform at a mediocre 'C' (3*) level.
If you don't like this bell curve, you can always look at Lipper ratings, which rate fully 20% of the funds "A' (5). But it's not as helpful. (I think the Lipper ratings are more helpful because they rate different aspects of the fund, like consistency and returns, but in terms of the scale they use, their unweighted scale isn't as helpful.)
Similar idea with credit ratings. According to S&P data (see figure below), virtually no AAA bonds (0.00%) default within a year, almost as few (0.17%) BBB bonds default, while a quarter (26.82%) of CCC bonds default within the span of a year. Now that default doesn't mean they go bust, more likely they just stop paying interest.
Still, think about a portfolio containing one AAA bond and one CCC bond, vs. a portfolio containing two BBB bonds. The latter has less than a 0.34% chance of any bond defaulting. The former has better than a 1/4 chance of defaulting, though the impact is cut in half since the CCC bond represents only half the portfolio.
Both portfolios "average" BBB in credit rating, if we take a simple average. That average doesn't tell us anything; these two portfolios have such disparate risk profiles.
What we can do with the first portfolio is weight the bond ratings by their impact. So while we might rate AAA as "A" (giving it a numeric value of 1), we might rate CCC bonds as 'Z' (giving it a numeric value of 26, corresponding to its 26+% chance of defaulting). Now when we average the two bonds, we get somewhere around 13, which might correspond to "high quality" junk.
That gives us a better sense of what to expect from the portfolio in terms of defaults. If getting a sense of portfolio default risk is what we want from an average credit rating, then this method of averaging is more meaningful.
If what we want from an average credit rating is to compress the bond allocation (how many A's, how many B's, etc.) down to a single number, then a simple average is better. Personally, if I want to know what the allocation of bonds is, I just look at a bar chart or table showing the whole distribution. It's not as though there are that many grades of bonds that the picture is confusing.

I bought back into IOFIX last week with profits I took out of riskier CEfs after the big ytd runup began to slow, and looked at the current asset allocation on the web site before I plunked the $ down. It's still 98% residential MBS, but the legacy share is down to ~ 3/4 of the port. There's 0.4% in what they refer to as ABS, "which may encompass aircraft, shipping, and transportation assets" (so sayeth the fact sheet).
I'd suggest skipping M* entirely when researching bond fund allocation. It's easy to find almost any fund's allocation, using their info, and that info usually has the distinct advantage of being basically accurate. M* bollixed up their bond analysis several years ago, and it's really not worth the time using them for bond allocation info any longer.

IOFIX was near the bottom of the barrel in a robust Bondland until the past month where it has suddenly surged ahead. . Except for the new offering EIXIX which @The Shadow mentioned here, IOFIX leads all the others this year in the non agency rmbs arena. I still think IOFIX is an excellent and well managed fund. My problem with IOFIX was its one day decline late last year of 1.29%. Regardless, junk corporates from day one this year have been and remain the place to be in Bondville with gains in the 7% to 8% and more range. Even the normally staid (compared to its peers) Vanguard junk fund VWEHX is having a bang up year over 8% YTD. Four times out of the past five negative years in junk they came back the following year with double digit returns. So let’s hope this will be 5 out of 6 as last year was negative.

Lipper categories:
SMD - Short Municipal Debt Funds - Funds invest in municipal debt issues with dollar-weighted average maturities of less than three years.
SIM - Short-Intmdt Municipal Debt Funds - Funds invest in municipal debt issues with dollar-weighted average maturities of one to five years.
ISHAX has an average effective weighted maturity of 9.37 years. (Effective maturity is generally shorter than stated maturity because it incorporates the likelihood of being called.) That makes it clearly not short term by Lipper definitions. Likewise, M* shows the fund as intermediate term.

Hi @hank
Yes, for the most part; I was being a smart arse. I grow tired of the site(s) pronouncements that arrive here. Too many posts have no input from the poster as to why such a site link may be of some consequence. Tis fairly simple to have at least a single sentence personal thought about the topic.
There are, without a doubt; valid investment thoughts here and there in the internet world that can arrive at MFO.
Being curious as to investment announcements, I poked through charts; using the tickers indicated and found nothing valid as to why one would want to invest in this area, based on this recent post shown next in bold. Apparently nothing more than a writing assignment. Had I posted the linked story, it would have been relative to the fact that I didn't see any confirmation that the investment areas had a positive return for an investor, versus other simple equity investment areas.
You Can Play the Flurry of M&A With Merger Arbitrage Fund
I received an email last year from a lady I've know for 40 years about a YouTube video she had seen about investing "now" in gold and silver, as the world was going to hell in a hand basket some day or another. I watched the short video and researched the author. My reply email was a background of the person trying the sell. She'd been involved in the precious metals market in a variety of positions for more than 20 years. Pure marketing to have an income.
Overall, with all of my warts and short comings as a person; I/we understand what we don't understand relative to investments and have a decent amount of critical thinking skills. IMHO these are very important to investing in particular, let alone everything else in life. So, yes; I tire of many of the pointless posts here. I do my best to post/respond to something I feel may be of consequence and valid for some here. Obviously, my viewpoint is only mine; and the value of a given link remains in the eye of the poster and the reader.
K. Too much ramble from me and my chores are now behind schedule to stay ahead of the rain.
Take care,
Catch

Nicely articulated by @LewisBraham. Thank you. (I too can do without Suzie O.) :)
Re “aged scotch” ... Just for accuracy: All scotch is aged (minimum of 3 years in oak casks - by law). That’s the only kind there is.
Here’s the exact language from the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (SWR) : “ (Must be) wholly matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres (185 US gal; 154 imp gal) for at least three years”
Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky

Munis are issued with long maturities, so < 5 is generally considered short duration in the asset class. Lower credit (but nowhere near the risk of similarly rated corporates, as munis are) with some rate sensitivity isn't a bad setup for an unofficial barbell approach.
P.S. Matt, I use NVHAX quite a bit. I don't invest in IG munis much at all these days; absent leverage, their yields have been pretty paltry for years.
I do use muni CEFs (Pimco, Invesco, and Nuveen have some pretty decent ones), but not when they're at high valuations like they are now. Pimco's are generally at high premia now, and they just announced some distribution cuts early this week. I'll own a muni CEF or two when the next selloff comes along. You might look into that route, but it does take some time to get your personal investment schtick down with CEFs.
Good luck -- AJ

I find the generational and classist finger wagging from rich old folks like Orman obnoxious and absurd in the extreme. There are always these articles complaining about young people "wasting their money" on lattes and avocado toast. Why aren't there articles about the older generation wasting its money on aged scotch, gun collections, cigars and foreign-made mid-life crisis convertibles? Lattes at least help make you work harder and be more productive so you can have more money to invest. I don't think the younger generation is any more wasteful than its elders. In fact, there's evidence that they are actually smarter about money with regard to home buying and lower cost investment choices. This whole debate about people not saving enough is really a smokescreen masking the fact that inflation-adjusted wages have not gone up with profits in the last thirty years, and one party wants to gut Social Security.

@mcmarasco:
For me, ISHAX might be a named as a short duration high yield muni fund; but, from my perspective, it is anything but a short duration fund as it carries an average duration of 4.64 years with an average effective maturity being listed, by M*, at 9.37 years. To me, this is not a short duration high yield muni fund. I'm thinking short duration would be within a 1 to 3 year range with an average effective maturity likewise falling within that range as well.

@Derf: I try not to post over something that has already been put up. But, at times, it happens.
Perhaps, the class needed another lecture on the subject and there just might be some that simply missed its first posting as I did. Often times, a professor will offer the same lecture more than once. And, besides @hank, @Old_Joe and @MikeM had a great discussion and exchange going between themselves on this very subject; but, under another thread topic.
For me, what is important about this study, with me being in retirement, is that it reflects that a 50/50 portfolio can substain a 4% withdrawal rate and grow principal over time as the 50/50 portfolio averaged an 8.5% return over time. I'm thinking, the 4% withdrawal rate would have to be computed on the portfolio's average value. This is why I set my own withdrawal rate to generally not exceed a sum of what one-half of my five year average return has been. I found in doing this about twenty years ago when I governed my parents portfolio's provided them ample income plus grew their principal. Now, I have adopted this very same distribution withdrawal method.
Sorry @Ted. My bad. I simply missed it's first posting.
Skeet

@David_Snowball enjoyed your analysis of BAFWX. Thank you. In the article you mention that:
" With an 18.0% lifetime APR, BAFWX is an MFO Great Owl in the multicap growth category. That means it has consistently received a return rank of 5 (Best) for all periods three years and longer. It joins only nine other GO funds in that category. Investors have not sacrificed returns or experienced a tradeoff from using ESG characteristics in the portfolio."
Could you please provide a list of the other 9 GO funds with a return rank of 5 for all periods? thank you

Lou Rukeyser was a mentor to many of our cohort. To this day I can visualize Frank Cappiello mournfully shaking his head at the perceived foolishness of some element of "Wall Street", and predicting some imminent disaster or other. I was also fond of Julius Westheimer and poor Marty Zweig, who over many years took an unmerciful pounding because the predictions of his technical "elves" sometimes fell a little short of reality. A good crew, for sure.

“Investors Shouldn't Watch Business TV”.
Alright. Than who should watch ?
I’ll say, coming from a very large family where money & money management were pretty much alien concepts (except Fridays when we ate very well), just about everything I learned about the subject of finance came from Rukeyser’s old show on Friday nights - which spanned 25 years. Has shaped my attitudes towards investing for decades.
You could do a lot worse than to invite the likes of John Templeton, Peter Lynch or Henry Kaufman into your living room on Friday nights. Yes - I was a college grad. But being a liberal arts major, left school knowing much more about Robert Frost than about money.