@msf: Thanks for the fact-checking. Sloppy work on my part. I guessed at the 1.5% figure by discounting the reported 30-day SEC yield of 1.73% for TRBUX somewhat. What I overlooked was that it’s much harder nowadays for managers to play games with their consumer level money market funds (ala Dick Strong / Mercury Capital) with those new reforms in place. Have corrected my numbers in the above post.
Something I might have added is that the SEC reforms forced money market funds to drop some higher tier corporate debt that the ultra shorts were all too happy to pick up. So, indirectly, the reforms aided the ultra shorts’ relative performance. That’s the point where I moved all my cash with TRP from money market to ultra short.

I agree with nearly everything hank wrote. The one exception is the juxtaposition of these two bullet items:
- Short term rates have risen since 2011, albeit not by much. But compared to a half-percent back in 2011, the near 1.5% available in money market funds today looks better than it did by comparison in 2011. And rates are expected to rise further.
- Recent SEC mandated rules on money market funds have arguably made them safer in comparison with RPHYX than they might have appeared back in 2011.
What the SEC did was bifurcate MMFs into safer ones (government MMFs) and ones with higher, or at least different, risks (prime MMFs). The risks are different because they may now slow redemptions or impose redemption fees in times of stress.
I've talked with Fidelity about this, and as near as we can figure out (didn't get a clear answer), it's possible to be charged a redemption fee for merely writing a check. This can happen if you're using a prime MMF (position fund) as a backup for your core account, and that check draws from the prime MMF at a time it's imposing redemption fees.
The safer funds (second bullet item) are government funds. These pay less than prime MMFs, and none is currently above 1% (first bullet item). Very close though (0.99%), and worth considering for their added convenience if the one you want is available NTF at your usual brokerage.
Current top MMF rates:
http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0204-trmfy.html

To put this in perspective, the new DOL regs for fiduciaries allow different levels of compensation for selling different categories of products, up to a certain level.
BICE allows higher compensation for selling complex products that require more work to explain to the customers. (DOL FAQ: "variation [in commission] is permitted ... based on neutral factors, such as the time and complexity associated with recommending investments".) This arises from the reasonable compensation rule.
At the same time, BICE forbids the additional compensation to be so high as to create an incentive to push these products. More generally (again from DOL FAQ) "financial institutions cannot 'use or rely upon quotas, appraisals, performance or personnel actions, bonuses, contests, special awards, differential compensation or other actions or incentives that are intended or would reasonably be expected to cause Advisers to make recommendations that are not in the Best Interest of the Retirement Investor.'"
If it takes someone twice as much time and effort to sell product A as product B, and compensation is equal, that person has a disincentive to sell (or "push", as Ms. Morgenson wrote) product A. That is true regardless of how much more or less profitable one product or the other is for the company. Unequal compensation for different products can be reasonable. Whether the differences merely equalize the sales incentives for different products or bias them (presumably toward the more profitable product) is a matter of the magnitude of the differences in compensation.
According to the DOL, the mere existence of compensation differences does not automatically create an incentive to sell one over the other, Ms. Morgenson aside. Yet she leaps immediately to the conclusion that it must, with no numbers, no explanation.
The TIAA Form ADV Part 2A that she cited mirrors the DOL regs: "TIAA’s compensation philosophy aims to reward Advisors with appropriate compensation, recognizing the degree of effort generally required of the Advisor in gathering and retaining client assets in appropriate TIAA accounts, products and services offered by TIAA affiliates."
Ms. Morgenson also leaps from writing about "advisers" in the first paragraph (who are bound by fiduciary duty, BICE, etc. not to be incentivized to "push" higher profit products) to "sales representatives" in the second paragraph, who are under no such constraints. Which one is it? Is the undisclosed complaint talking about sales reps or advisers?
That matters because, as I stated before, while this doesn't help TIAA's reputation, it doesn't paint them as an exceptionally bad actor. I've written before about Fidelity's reps having similar compensation schedules. Here's Fidelity's 2017 Introduction to Representatives’ Compensation.
"Certain representatives also receive differing compensation for different product types, for example, managed account and insurance product sales, which require more in-depth engagement with clients, provide more compensation than products such as money market funds." For example, Fidelity reps get quarterly compensation of 1 basis point for investments in MMFs, while10 basis points for investments in Fidelity's Portfolio Advisory Services and/or insurance products.
For anyone who's suggested going to a brokerage to discuss ideas "for free", tell me again how great a bargain that is.

I searched the fund and found volumes of discussions dating way back to July, 2011.
Hear’s one of the earliest - Riverpark Short-Term High Yield Fund Looks Like A Great Place to Park Money: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/748/riverpark-short-term-high-yield-fund-rphyx-looks-like-a-great-place-to-park-money
Another early discussion - Riverpark Short-Term High Yield Fund - What Role in Your Portfolio?: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/3384/rphyx-riverpark-short-term-high-yield-what-role-in-your-portfolio
With the proviso that I’ve never owned this fund and have only a limited understanding of the methodology employed, I’ll nonetheless venture a few thoughts:
- Short term rates have risen since 2011 - albeit not by much. Compared to a half-percent back in 2011, the near 1%* available in money market funds today makes them appear better in comparison than in 2011. (*near 1.5% corrected to near 1%)
- New SEC rules governing money market funds have made them safer in comparison with RPHYX than they might have appeared back in 2011.
- Both equities and high yield bonds have appreciated greatly since than. I haven’t heard a knowledgeable observer dispute for months that spreads between investment grade debt and high yield are about as narrow today as they’ve ever been.
Re #3 above - A manager in a distressed debt fund likely has been confronted with two choices since 2011: (1) reach for yield and compromise portfolio quality, or (2) settle for lower (relative) returns while maintaining portfolio quality. Some of the comments regarding “underperformance” of RPHYX suggest to me, anyway, that the fund’s managers have elected the second choice in order to preserve investor capital.
While I don’t follow RPHYX closely, I periodically compare returns against TRBUX (investment grade ultra short) which I own. RPHYX has consistently outperformed my fund (though with a higher risk profile).
Is RPHYX still a good investment? As @msf and others have noted, it all depends on your overall investment aporoach and time horizon. How much additional risk are you willing to take on in your cash / cash alternative sleeve in pursuit of incrementally higher yield on that portion of your investments? Personally, I could construct a portfolio in which RPHYX would meet a need. Presently it doesn’t fit.

While I enjoy Ms. Morgenson's columns and generally agree with them, they nevertheless tend to resemble hit pieces with the occasional questionable statement or two. Never factually wrong, but laden with innuendo.
She decries the "often hefty costs associated with TIAA funds". Yet elsewhere in the article she she states that "the average asset-weighted expense ratio on TIAA’s mutual funds was 0.32 percent in 2016", and acknowledges that this was "lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average".
She attempts some jiujitsu by arguing that this is still too high (though not calling the fees "hefty" in this section). Here's how she does that:
:
"Although lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average, it is more expensive than a low-cost provider like Vanguard, whose average expense ratio was 0.11 percent in 2016."
She gives M* as her data source. Here's what M* had to say:

The asset-weighted average fee of Vanguard’s funds fell to 0.11% from 0.14% during the past three years [2013-2016]. This 21% decline was the largest percentage decline among the largest fund providers, thanks to large flows into Vanguard’s low-priced ETFs and index funds and falling fees in some of Vanguard’s largest funds as the fund company passes improving efficiencies to fundholders. During that period, Vanguard has strengthened its leading position, as its market share rose to 22% from 18%. Vanguard’s 2016 asset-weighted average expense ratio of 0.11% was significantly below that of the second-lowest-cost provider, SPDR State Street, at 0.19%, followed by Dimensional Fund Advisors at 0.36%.

What we glean from this is that (a) you need to look at active/passive mix before chastising a family for high fees or lauding it for low ones, and (b) TIAA's 0.32% is right in line with other low cost families. Is Vanguard the only family that advisors are now allowed to use? Who are these other low cost providers that are like Vanguard?
That's not to say TIAA may not have been taken some dubious actions. Likely enough to take some of the shine off its white knight image. But ISTM not enough (or at least not enough documented) to paint it as an especially bad actor.
The one complaint she linked to seems to have merit IMHO. We have to take her word on the whistle-blower complaint though, since it is currently confidential. We don't know what else is in it, just as we didn't know the additional M* data that I gave above. (Yup, there's my own innuendo, without AFAIK misstating facts.)
To repeat, I like Ms. Morgenson's columns, I think she does a great job at digging through the underside of the financial world. But I don't take them (or any columnist piece) as gospel.

I wrote this post on RPHYX / RPHIX not too long ago: https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/35593/target-return-of-riverpark-short-term-high-yield-rphyx-rphix
Basically, RPHYX / RPHIX was originally billed as targeting a return of 3.5% - 4.5% a year, but the actual performance has been closer to 2.5% and declining. I still have a bit of money there but questioning whether it is worth taking risk for this level of return (and they do have risk, as 2015 showed).

For me cash is cash ... and, there are few subsitutes for it.

I agree with old skeet here. Not sure where this term 'cash alternative' came from.

Here’s a couple strict definitions for the noun cash.
- “ Cash is money in the form of bills and coins rather than checks.
... two thousand dollars in cash.”
- “Cash means the same as money, especially money which is immediately available.”
Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/cash
You guys are a hard lot. Most terms in the English language are open to definition. But it sounds like both of you are pretty much in agreement with Collins Dictionary‘s narrow definition that cash means hard currency.
I might hide away a couple $50 bills when traveling, and maybe carry $150 cash in my wallet. I’d shudder to think, however, that the paper currency in my immediate possession was the only true cash I possessed.
Anytime you go beyond a U.S. minted coin or government issued paper certificate you’re introducing some degree of uncertainty. Will the bank that issued your CD remain solvent? Will the FDIC be willing and able to honor its guarantee? Will your money market fund remain solvent? Some have failed (broken the buck) in the past.
So, the question posed was Cash Alternatives. Yep - Anything beyond the actual currency (or T-Bill) entails some additional risk. I don’t think the folks responding to the thread are blind to that fact.

@bee: I'm sorry, I think M* was referring to these bonds !:
Regards,
Ted :)
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=james+bond+actors&oq=James+bond&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l7j0i20i264k1j0l2.2301.5837.0.16206.11.10.0.0.0.0.82.613.9.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.9.610.0..46j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i46i67k1j46i67k1j0i46k1.0.pKVZLlaBwOg

Moved some of our taxable account from SWTSX to PONDX probably will need it in the next 3-5 years, so lowering equity exposure while allowing room to run still. 30% bonds, 15% international index, rest still us index. A bit nervous having a bond fund in a taxable account. But it seemed better than the NTF nontaxable funds available to us.

For me cash is cash ... and, there are few subsitutes for it. I also consider CD's as a form of cash and pehaps some short term treasuries as well. In a low interest rate environment I have barbelled an equal amount of cash on one side and growth funds on the other. When the two are averaged my return year-to-date on the barbell is about 13%. So as a stand alone asset, not counting what my mutual funds hold in cash, my cash position is about 15% of my overall portfolio ... and, like wise my growth area is about the same. For 2017 it is estimated that capital gain distributions on the growth side of the barbell will be somewhere between four to seven percent while the cash side will yield a little better than one percent. With this, form my perspective, this makes the barbell a good income generator with an anticipated payout of somewhere between 2.5% to 4% range. And, a thirteen percent year-to-date return is not too shabby on a 50/50 mix. In addition, this return (and yield) compares favorablely to some of my better performing hybrid funds found in the income and growth & income areas of my portfolio. Year-to-date my mutual fund portfolio (as a whole) has returned about 12% according to Morningstar's Portfolio Manager.
Morningstar's Instant Xray analysis reflects overall that I am currently at about 19% cash including what my mutual funds hold.

FYI: Taxable bond funds remained popular last month, and the sector equity category group took a surprising second place.
Despite expectations of rising rates, taxable bond was once again the most popular category group in September with $34.9 billion inflows overall, significantly higher than the $27.5 billion it had received in August. In a reversal from the previous month, passive taxable-bond flows surpassed active ones: $20.5 billion versus $14.4 billion.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=830210

Interest rates and yields have climbed enough to take another look at where to put cash, even if the answers haven't changed. For example, VMMXX now sports an APY of 1.14%, and FZDXX ($10K min in IRA) has an APY of 1.11%. Those are comparable to FDIC-insured savings accounts, but not quite high enough to justify the added risk of MMFs. Nevertheless, high enough to consider in brokerage accounts such as IRAs where moving cash isn't easy.
It still depends on why you're holding cash, where (e.g. IRA or taxable) you're holding it, and what your time horizon is. I still think I-bonds are great if you're holding for more than a year and you can live with their coarse granularity (you can only cash out a complete savings bond, not a partial amount of a few dollars).
If you've got a time horizon comfortably longer than a year, and are looking to invest cash in a taxable account, I'm still fond of short to short/intermediate funds. VMLUX goes way back, and is one of the more conservatively managed funds of that breed.
The team (well, two of the three) managing BTMIX (started in 2015) goes back to BMO muni funds. Duane McAllister goes back the furthest, co-managing MUISX (ultra-short) from inception (2009) until moving to Baird, and MTFIX (short term) from inception (2012) until moving to Baird. Those would be the closest match funds. To get an idea of his 2008 success, you can also look at MITFX, that he co-managed from 2007 until moving to Baird. Not quite what expatsp asked for (a fund history back through 2008), but still something to hang your hat on.

expatsp said: “A whole lot of ultra-short bond funds crashed and burned then.” Absolutely correct. That’s where I think we sometimes miss the boat in not appreciating the culture of the fund family behind a fund. I don’t worry about TRP running an ultra-short. They consistently err on the side of caution in their lower risk offerings. Their in house research is tops. Were such a fund run by just about anyone else, I’d worry more.
-
Not sure why this old post was resurrected. My prophesy a year ago that TRBUX would soon be yielding over 2% proved wrong. TRP puts its current 30-day annualized dividend yield at 1.73%. But the NAV has gained a penny to $5.02. As I may have mentioned back than, for purposes of exchanges Price allows the same flexibility with TRBUX they do with their money market funds. That’s the only reason I’m not using their short term bond fund, PRWBX instead for cash. Want to be able to take advantage of compelling buying opportunities if / when they arise without the frequent trading restrictions.
As one of the older and more conservative here, I’m probably higher on cash than most. No problem. Am comfortable sacrificing a couple percentage points return over shorter periods for the added stability and downside protection cash affords. My allocation model is 75% “Core” and 25% “Flexible.” The Core (largely set in stone) consists of various types of conservative / moderate allocation funds and smaller allocations to a global bond fund and some real asset funds. The flexible portion contains both equity funds and cash. It allows me to add or take risk off the table as I wish. Currently, the Flex portion is heavily weighted towards cash, which consists of insured bank deposits, TRBUX, and a smaller slug of DODIX.
Fortunate to have a good pension and Social Security. Don’t keep any separate cash reserve as most do. I feel I’m conservatively enough positioned to continue withdrawing distributions no matter where the market runs. And, it occurs to me that this must be the type of approach the “new” income funds at Price and elsewhere adhere to.

This time, this is not even a follow up, but a duplicate. From the article:

The article “New Target-Date Funds Are Geared for Withdrawal Time” first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

MFO: New Target-Date Funds Are Geared For Withdrawal Time
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/35821/new-target-date-funds-are-geared-for-withdrawal-time
Having taken a closer look at the TRP fund, it appears to be simply another managed payout fund, like VPGDX. As such, it's not a new type of fund. The Vanguard fund targets a 4% payout based on the fund's value over the past three years, while TRLAX targets a 5% payout based on the fund's value over the past five years. I haven't compared glide paths.
The Fidelity funds, in contrast, claim that they're designed for RMD distributions, but don't manage the payouts. So ISTM that what's new with them is the marketing pitch, not the funds themselves.
Managed payout funds (including the TRP fund, but not the Fidelity funds) seem designed for people who want an annuity (cash stream) but are unwilling to cede control or ownership. As MikeM highlighted in his quote of Wade Pfau, if what you want is a cash stream and potential legacy, annuities are still the better way to go.

@msf,
You made my day with that one...Octothorpe!
#######

... for your individual taxable account. Then there's your joint account. Your UGMA account, etc. Not to mention that if you ever, ever opened an account with Robinhood before via ACAT, from TDA or anyone else, they won't pay for this transfer.
If one doesn't have experience with them, why would one jump to a relatively unknown (FWIW I was already aware of this brokerage) company just to "save" 75 bucks? As Lewis suggested, going with smaller companies may (or may not) carry risks and limitations that call for additional research.
Since you suggested Robinhood, perhaps you can help with some of that research by sharing any experiences you've had with them?

This is a follow-up to a previous thread, or perhaps a better description might be a prequel. The other thread cited an ETF.com/Sweedroe column that discussed (and cited) the Vanguard paper quoted above:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/35360/larry-swedroe-vanguard-debunks-dividend-myth

When you think of electric batteries for power walls and electric vehicles do you think of Nickel? You should. Materials are a vital part of any technological system. I came across this website which looks at geology from a investor's perspective.

There’s a revolution going on in the auto industry right now. Tesla, Inc. has proven demand for electric vehicles (EV’s) and invited the entire industry to join in the fun. From the Bolt to the Volt, from the Focus to the Leaf, pure electric and hybrid cars are pouring off the assembly lines in ever greater numbers. In their own way they are picking a new class of winners in the metals space. This article will briefly discuss some of the rationale behind the excitement and the implications for the demand and use of metals in the future.

Metals and Electric Cars – A Revolution in the Making
and,
7 Commodity Winners In Electric Car Revolution:
7+Commodity+Winners+In+Electric+Car+Revolution
A quick screening (highest 3 yr Sharpe Ratio) for Funds in this space:

@davidrmoran Let us know the results of your research. I'm looking to sell some equities & take some risk off the table too. Right now as a cash alternative I've got some money in two conservative bond funds but am looking for other options. Though a little more cash (I'm at about 15%, plus 5% each in the above funds) also feels appealing right now.

@MikeM,
Good read on creating a retirement "floor":
three-degrees-of-bad
And this,
Challenging the 4% Rule