It’s a real quandary today. No advice. Cash allows you breathing room to see what develops.
For my really “safe” money I’ve moved to GNMA funds. Expect to lose a bit, but it’s a comfort having a degree of federal backing for GNMA paper. A good manager might be able to grab off an extra percent or two above cash or TIPs over longer periods. (Both of mine are 1-2% underwater YTD.) Checking duration at Yahoo (under “holdings”) one fund is less than 3 years out and the other between 4 and 5 years. I wouldn’t go over 5 years on duration.
Balanced funds in general? I’ve stuck with mine. Worst case: managers will go very short term with the bond portion - costing some return potential, but also mitigating the fund’s volatility - a big reason for owning balanced funds.
The only muni I have is PRIHX. Price calls it “intermediate”, but it behaves more like a short-term bond fund. That might be why it doesn’t score well at M* and the rest. FYI - a bet on munis - especially longer term - is a bet on the economy. Under recessionary pressures, including high unemployment, state and local (tax) revenue declines while expenses may actually increase due to unemployment benefits. This can lead to downgrades of the bonds they’ve issued.

Interesting Forbes Commentary Article:

The supply lines of February 2020 were impossibly complicated structures that no politician could ever hope to design. Think billions of individuals around the world pursuing their narrow work specialization on the way to enormous global plenty. Put another way, the shelves in economically free countries were heaving with all manner of products based on economic cooperation that was staggering in scope. Brilliant as some experts claim to be, and brilliant as some politicians think they are as they look in the mirror, they could never construct the web of trillions of economic relationships that prevailed before the lockdowns. But they could destroy the web. And they did; that, or they severely impaired it.

theres-no-supply-chain-shortage-or-inflation-theres-just-central-planning

Since 10 year rules, inherited accounts and 401(k)s have been mentioned, I'll throw in another technical detail:
A lump sum distribution from an employer sponsored plan inherited from a participant born before 1936 can apply 10 year income averaging. In effect, one gets the money up front but is taxed as though one drew it out over ten years.
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/what-you-need-know-about-special-10-year-income-averaging
I actually have run into this situation. Though I wasn't the beneficiary.

I’ve been looking at this issue myself and there’s one important wrinkle to keep in mind. While you can take your total RMDs from any or all of your affected accounts, the accounts must all be of the same type. For example, if you have both IRAs and 401ks, you can’t take the IRA RMD from the 401k and vice versa.

RMDs from each 401K must be taken separately. They cannot be aggregated even though they are of the same type. Aggregation is possible with 403(b)s.
https://www.irahelp.com/system/files/ira-focus/25060/june-elite-analysis-rmd-aggregation-rules.pdf
RMDs for inherited IRAs must generally be taken separately from each IRA. An exception is if they IRAs are of the same type and they are inherited from the same person.

since they started 'adjusting' them in the 80s.
CPI figures have been adjusted since day one (1919). In 1921 the government cobbled together a national figure from an unweighted average of 32 city figures.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/historical-changes.htm
Would it be preferable to keep counting buggy whips, or whatever was in those 1919 averages rather than 'adjust' the inflation components over time?
Ever hear of Hedonic adjustments? That's when a product is 'new and improved' they can charge more and the increase is no included.
Sure, I've heard of hedonic quality adjustments. They can go up or down, based on the product change and the value of that change.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm
Certainly $300 buys more computer today (Best Buy's sub-$300 computers) than it did with the Commodore VIC-20 in 1981. Should we 'adjust' the CPI for this increase in value (i.e. recognize that computers are cheaper today)? Or do we stand firm and insist on making no adjustments based on product quality?
We could actually continue to include the Commodore and its ilk in the CPI. It looks like they're still available at around 2/3 the original selling price.

Somewhat related to the Paul Krugman article....China appears to be managing a necessary slow down in it's long term growth rate by attempting to transition towards a more balanced sharing of a less rapidly growing economic pie. Here is an update on how China is portraying it's current situation:
China Seeks to Allay Growth Slowdown Fears in Xinhua Report

That is correct @Observant1. The managers got caught with their pants very far down. An unexpected chain of events left them very exposed.

@msf said,
"- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs."
There is no Require Minimum Distribution for Inheirted IRAs, but instead, a Required Full Withdrawal following the 5 or 10 year rule. One could wait 10 years before making that one full required withdrawal providing an additional 10 years of tax free growth from the date of inheritance.
This article does a good job of explaining Inherited (Roth) IRAs:
https://fool.com/retirement/plans/inherited-iras/
1. A spouse (as a beneficiary) can rollover an Inherited Roth IRA (from a deceased spouse) and continue to enjoy no RMDs.
2. Withdraw the funds as a lump sum. You may withdraw all of the money from the original owner's IRA as a single lump sum. Doing so gives you a lot of money now, but also results in a high tax bill for the current year, unless you're withdrawing the funds from a Roth IRA that the original owner held for at least five years. In that case, you won’t owe any taxes on these withdrawals. However, if the owner didn’t have the account for at least five years, then you could owe income taxes on the Roth IRA earnings.
3. Use the five- or 10-year withdrawal method. The five- or 10-year withdrawal method enables you to withdraw money as often as you'd like and in whatever increments you choose, as long as the money is completely withdrawn within five or 10 years. If you fail to withdraw all the funds in time, then you'll pay a 50% penalty on whatever remains in the account.
You have five years to withdraw all the money from an inherited IRA if the account owner died in 2019 or earlier, and 10 years if they died in 2020 or later.
For all of us, this can be very confusing. If you have a specific scenario (question). I would suggest reader's ask their questions on the Ed Slott (Discussion Forum). It is a great IRA resource.
https://irahelp.com/phpBB

I’ve been looking at this issue myself and there’s one important wrinkle to keep in mind. While you can take your total RMDs from any or all of your affected accounts, the accounts must all be of the same type. For example, if you have both IRAs and 401ks, you can’t take the IRA RMD from the 401k and vice versa.
In our case, Mrs. Ruffles has inherited accounts from which she must take RMDs. We’re taking the RMDs from the smaller of these accounts to draw it down and reduce the number of accounts we have to deal with. Unfortunately, the smallest affected account is a Roth IRA while the others are standard IRAs so we’re stuck with dealing with it for her lifetime.

Howdy folks,
The government statistics on inflation are rubbish and have been since they started 'adjusting' them in the 80s. Too many COLAs and other ties to the CPI. feh. It's called screwing the public and hiding the facts about the dollar.
@Hank you mentioned that housing was eliminated in the early 1980s. Other things also. Here is Shadow Stats showing CPI like they calculated it in the 80s' and later the 90's. Ever hear of Hedonic adjustments? That's when a product is 'new and improved' they can charge more and the increase is no included. That's fine if you can still buy the old and unimproved item. Right.
Notice that he has the earlier version of inflation running about 12-13%
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
They're still dealing with the Unfunded Liabilities overhang that we've talked about for years now. What some $100 T. Their choices were to break as many promises as politically possible and deflate the currency by about 50%. Please note that it's down 96% since '13 so it only has to go to 2%. Easy. And let's not talk about the strong US dollar. Er, it's the cleanest pair of dirty socks in the hamper.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

FWIW, FDRV getting a nice little bump UP this AM likely due to TSLA/Hertz news.
EDIT: For anyone considering this ETF, FDRV closed UP 2.6%, showing the impact of a 12.7% move UP in TSLA.

My initial objection was to the assertion as to the reasons for the removal of home prices, nothing more.

You not only objected but offered an alternative explanation regarding the CPI-U calculation. My comments pertained to that alternative explanation, nothing more.
Accepting that explanation, then rather than reintegrate housing prices into the CPI-U as Carson did, we should remove vehicles from the CPI-U. Thus the 2021/2020 (Y/Y) CPI-U increase is actually significantly lower than reported.
That's not being contradictory. That's working with your thesis and exploring its implications. I didn't say whether vehicles should be excluded from the CPI-U. I did ask whether you agreed with where your thesis led - that vehicle price increases should not be counted in calculating the CPI-U.
Maybe, despite the statistics, your gut tells you that on some continuum car purchases resemble day-to-day expenses more closely than do home acquisitions which are "rare years-apart purchases." Perhaps looking at different inflation component will help clarify what you have in mind with this continuum.
College educations, rather than being rare year-apart, are often one time purchases. On average, people tend to attend college once in a lifetime. Many never attend college. Some may attend even multiple times without attaining a degree. Others may make multiple "purchases", i.e. earn multiple degrees.
Regardless of the precise average number of college education purchases per lifetime, the purchasing of college educations would seem to share many attributes with home purchases - infrequent, not a day-to-day type of expense, something one budgets for years in advance, something that is paid for over a period of years, something that is "consumed" over multiple years.
Help us understand whether the reason you gave for excluding home prices from the CPI-U also excludes the cost of college educations.

Howdy folks,
@Hank can't say I disagree with anything. Is the market highly valued? Yeppers. Overvalued? Define overvalued. It feels very stretched. Yeah, it's the only game in town and the whole world is cash flush. How can it not be overvalued.
Problems? You've got several Black Swans circling like vultures . . . and those are the ones we know about. The Fed is screwed. They're so far behind the curve on inflation and tapering that they have no power WSFever. Besides. with the insider trading scandal, I no longer will bet on Powell staying. Congress is a disaster as always so no help there.
Be careful, this smells like bubbles I've enjoyed before. Perhaps most like 1999.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

My initial objection was to the assertion as to the reasons for the removal of home prices, nothing more.
>> removed from the official price indexes owing to political and statistical issues.

A lame, misleading (not only silly and tendentious meaning promotional) attribution, I say.
Meanwhile, did everyone listen to Yellen yesterday? (link above) May she be right. Will take a while.
Meanwhile 2, some booga-booga:
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-hyperinflation-us-economy-consumer-prices-2021-10

@crash - it's not for everyone but
IOFIX - 1yr.: +18.29% although after last year there really wasn't much place to go but up.
YTD: +13.7%
Yield: 3.98%

IOFIX generated excellent category returns from inception (05/28/2015) through 2019.
IIRC correctly, volatility was low and the Sharpe ratio was high during this period.
The fund then delivered an unpleasant surprise when it returned -36.18% during Q1 2020.
IOFIX seemed like a safe fund for years...

Two petty technical points:
- You're supposed to calculate the RMD for each IRA and then add them together. Usually that comes out the same as adding the values together and then dividing, since:
$A / N years + $B / N years = $(A+B) / N years.
But in rare cases you could have a different N for two IRAs.
If on one IRA the sole beneficiary is your spouse, who is more than 10 years your junior, you use Table II (Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy) for the divisor. If the situation is different on another IRA (e.g. beneficiary is sibling), then you use the customary Table III (Uniform Lifetime) to find the divisor.
- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs.

@msf
Grateful for all that info. It's an eye-opener. And yet, "what's a mother to do?" Short-term funds, to me, are "return-free risk." Not like STOCKS, of course. Or rather, the risk is in not getting much of anything back on your investment. IG-rated stuff might offer you (me, that is) a monthly dividend which MIGHT cover the cost of an Uber ride somewhere.
PTIAX was paying a 14 cent div. during the mortgage boom. Now it varies, but still better, per share, than my other two. And nowhere near 14 cents anymore. They are all actively managed, and I like that.
We don't normally talk in terms of hard-dollar figures here, about the size of our portfolios. I'm still below a quarter million. 56% in bonds, trying to grow the bond-stake and reduce the proportion in stocks. Last week was a good week for stocks. I'll take it.

The Barron's quote of Carson which elicited your comment was about how including home costs in the CPI-U would make that number much higher. It concerned the CPI-U, or what Carson calls "the official price report".
You posited (in)frequency of transactions as a rationale for excluding home prices from the CPI-U. Not from some sort of core CPI, not from some "embedded" inflation calculation, but from the CPI-U. I simply pointed out that if that were the rationale, then vehicle prices would also be excluded.
ISTM that given this exclusion rationale there are three alternatives:

1. vehicle prices should not be included in the CPI-U. They are purchased at about the same frequency as homes and can be just as volatile: used vehicles up 24% Y/Y, homes up 19.5%.
2. there is some other continuum (what?), aside periodicity or potential volatility, that distinguishes the housing component from the used vehicle component
3. the periodicity rationale given is at best incomplete (kindly complete)

The bottom line is simple: CPI-U is a measure of inflation as seen by the "average" consumer. The average consumer sees wildly fluctuating prices, including gasoline (up 42% Y/Y) and medical supplies (down 1.6%). Welcome to the real world.
Whether one should worry about this or how one should smooth out the volatility is a different question, and not the point of the Barron's piece.

Here’s a good read on the subject.
As stocks soar to historical highs, some experts say conditions ripe for correction
Odd photo of Chairman Powell. Is he floating bubbles?

Drawdown on junk bonds in March 2020 is over 10% until the Fed’s rescue. Junk bonds are up this year while the quality bonds, government and corporate, are all in red.
I have shifted to bank loans and short-term TIPs. Next year could be even more challenging with higher rates.