There's a whole spectrum of risk/reward in the "cash-ish" arena. If one is looking for something one can draw from daily, that's called a checking account. One can fudge that by using a savings account (generally limited to 6 withdrawals per month), but that's about all.
Moving up from there, one might be willing to tolerate a small loss and/or hold the investment a little longer to ride out the blips. If you're willing to tolerate only small losses, you'd likely prefer a fund with a small max drawdown. That might be more to your liking if you anticipated drawing on this asset every few months. OTOH, if your horizon is a bit longer you might be more forgiving of the blips but more insistent on a generally smooth ride.
This fund seems to fall into that latter camp. It had nearly a 5% drop between March 14 and March 23. See M* graph. So it can lose a year's worth of returns in a week. Still, over the longer term it does seem to plod along, just as @MikeM describes.
A more traditional fund that I've been looking at, FJRLX - on the risky end of limited term bond funds - has similar volatility, a somewhat worse dip (6.5% between March 8 and March 23), and a poorer five year/three year performance.
Which makes MNWAX an interesting, if unusual, candidate for holding longer term cash.

So far, TRP seems to be putting old wine into new bottles. It has historically positioned itself as a money manager that does more intensive research, thus adding value. This has enabled it to charge the higher fees that go with active management. But it had not offered competitive index funds, despite their growing popularity. It is rectifying that in part by converting to index funds.
It's hard to see active management adding much value to long term Treasuries. They are essentially commodities with no credit risk. So for this fund at least, it makes sense to give up the active management ghost.
With its active ETFs, it looks like TRP is trying to preserve (actually increase) its management fees, while adding a distribution channel and benefiting from offering "cheaper" ETFs. Cheaper for the investor (lower total ER), but more profitable for the management company.
Unlike OEFs, ETFs have very little in the way of "other expenses" (administration, distribution, etc.) 100% of the ERs of TRP's ETFs go to management. Here are their prospectuses:
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/funds/etfs/prospectuses-reports.html
Total expense ratios:
TCHP, 0.57% vs. TRBCX, 0.69%
TDGV, 0.50% vs. PRDGX, 0.62%
TEQI, 0.54% vs. PRFDX, 0.64%
TGRW, 0.52% vs. PRGFX, 0.65%

I do rather worry about the RobinHood crowd and the prospect that they're pushing things higher, in part by triggering the algos. The observation that the S&P 495 is underwater by 5% year-to-date while the S&P 5 is up dramatically, does feel worrisome.
David

Be well, David.
Speaking of the RobinHood crowd, I saw TSLA is doing a 5:1 split. Since TSLA is a totally unhinged herd-mentality momentum stock, I have to wonder, would this attract RobinHooders and other bet-it-all-on-red folks? Heck, do RobinHooders play with stocks that cost more than $30/share?

All about what you are using it for, @Derf. I would use neither of the funds you mentioned as a store for cash which was my intent and the premise of the posted article. Both SPEDX and RLSFX dropped 13-14% during the initial Covid drop. Not a "cash stash" in my book. As mentioned, for me MNWAX is just a "safe" fund to plod along at a 3-4% /year pace with very little volatility. Not for everyone I'm sure.

@Derf, Interesting pick in SPEDX. Thinking I'll cut some from SPECX into SPEDX through a nav transfer. This should put me somewhere around 50% in SPECX, 25% in SPEDX and 25% in AOFAX within the Alger family of funds. I've got to be careful moving out of SPECX as I've built up sizeable unrealized capital gains in SPECX. In doing a nav transfer I avoid commissions but tax wise this counts as a sale and the tax man will want his cut.
Again, a good pick in SPEDX as I am really thinking hard about moving some money into it especially since, from my perspective, equities are overbought and it can short. I'd most likely hold SPEDX in my niche fund sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.
As for my cash I have it split among four money market funds. They are AMAXX, TTOXX, TBIXX & PCOXX. Currently, their year to date returns are 0.27%, 0.34%, 0.47% & 0.52% respectively. When I reduced my cash allocation from 20% to 15% in my portfolio, a while back, I rolled this money into a couple bond funds (MIAQX, LBNDX & FLAAX) since cash yields are paying next to nothing and these bond funds have current yields of about 4.2%, 4.0% and tax free 3.2% respectively. This move became my chosen option to counter low cash yields and raised my income area allocation from 40% to 45%.
Over time, I'll let my portfolio's income generation restore my cash position back to the neutral position of 20%. I'm thinking by year end I'll be back close to the 20% cash allocation as I take all income distributions including year end mutual fund capital gain ditributions in cash. At year end I'll decide how to proceed with respect to the rebalancing my portfolio.
I'm sure there is more than one way to deal with low cash yields. As investors, we have to decide which way is best for each of us to proceed knowing there is no one right (or wrong) way to move as there are no doubt many options that will find success.
Thanks again Derf for bringing SPEDX to the board's attention as I am no longer a student of new fund study although I do follow the markets and for the most part run with what I have establised through my many years of investing.

“The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.”
That’s four of the most confusing sentences I’ve ever read. - “Who’s on first?“

Thanks David for sharing those reports. Doesn’t surprise me. Bill Fleckenstein’s usually reliable site is down today due to a power outage as well. (Not sure where he’s located.) A big-time gold bull for sure. So I’m unclear whether it was the weather or gold’s $100 slide today that knocked his lights out.

Hi guys,
For those that have frequent power outages as I do a battery backed up led light bulb might be of interest. I have a good number of them in use in addition to standby power generation.
Here is the link for the bulbs. About $10.00 each at Home Depot.
https://toolguyd.com/led-light-bulb-with-battery-backup/

Hi @David_Snowball,
I live in a 100+ year old neighborhood with above ground powerlines that snake through the alleyways. Yep, it has a good number of 100+ year old oak trees ... and, frequently tree limbs take the powerlines down. My solution ... for the past twenty years ... has been a Generac standby power generator that runs off of natural gas. With this, I do not have to seek fuel to run it. Something to think about going forward if you don't already have one. Mine will run pretty much to whole house plus some reserve for a life line for a neighbor or two.
On asset valuations ... Yep, I'm with the call that a good number of asset classes are extremely overbought and selling at premium prices including most stocks, bonds and real estate. Many homes in my neighborhood are selling well above their appraised and listed prices due to location to the central business district in Charlotte. I remember ... years back ... people paid dearly to get out of the neighborhood. Well, and now, they are paying dearly to get back in to avoid long commute times. Most homes in my area are selling at 110+ percent of appraised value. So, yes ... from my perspective ... if you buy now you will indeed have to pay up not only for real estate but for stocks and bonds as well.
Seems, to me, inflation is back. Take care ...
Hope you get your power back soon. I'm sure it is no fun being without it.
Old_Skeet

@Shostakovich: yep. Around the time, I suppose, that Sequoia was *the* domestic fund to hold...
Morningstar's enthusiasm for the fund remains undimmed but their case is dependent on two arguments. First, Dodge and Cox is Dodge and Cox. Second, if you look at the record since the fund's inception in 2001, it's been great. That's true, but true only if you're looking at periods longer than 10 years. Their analysis of the rough patch of the past decade is pretty much "they're contrarian."
Only one of the original six managers remains on the team. While management change has not been rapid, it has been pretty consistent. Perhaps they've lost more talent than they knew? Perhaps some of the folks being added to the team have a perspective at odds with the founders' approach? Maybe the world has changed.
David

Where To Stash Your Cash
Oct. 11, 2017 8:59 AMGM, VFSUX, VMFXX
Summary
Investors have been bullish on equities with a couple of corrections along the way since March 2009.
Equities are starting to look a bit frothy.
In the past, investors might have started moving money out of equities and into bonds at this point.
The driver for the 8.5 year bull market in equities has also driven up the price of bonds resulting in near historically low yields.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4112870-where-to-stash-your-cash
Couple good ideas revisited
Short bond funds/ultrashort bond funds/mm/ cd yields/
Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade Fund (NYSE: VFSUX)
Vanguard Short Term Tax Exempt Fund (NYSE: VWSUX)
Vanguard Ultra Short Term Bond Fund (NYSE: VUSFX)
Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund (NYSE: VMFXX)
We do use preferred etf PFF and preferred BAC vehicles
Regards

I was interviewed by the folks at Fund Intelligence on the day that the D&C prospectus was filed. Three guesses that I shared with them:
D&C are not under any real asset pressure. Firm AUM is holding up nicely. Even if they were looking for an asset grab, emerging markets value isn't the place to attempt it.
As several of you have noted, the timing may be right for EM value exposure. 361 Capital shared and interesting note that talked about which assets have, in the past, benefited when the US dollar weakened (a predictable consequence of zero interest rates on dollar bank securities and trillions of new issuance). They report that small, value and emerging are in the top four in both of the preceding periods they examined. Commodities made one of the two lists as well.
But, sadly, there's not much evidence that D&C are good at international investing. Their fixed income funds are splendid. Their primarily domestic equity funds are reasonable. Their international and global funds are not very good at all. There may well be good reason for the sustained underperformance but caution is not one of them: the funds tend to underperform pretty substantially in falling markets.
For what interest that might hold, David

FWIW - DODBX jumped nearly 1% yesterday while similar funds were flat. I suspect that was a reaction to its overweighting in the financial sectors which benefit from higher interest rates. No - I’m not touting the fund. I wouldn’t wish it upon anybody at this point (though I hold a sizeable chunk).
Of course, should rates continue upward, there’s a chance they might kill the golden goose.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4367158-natural-gas-prices-surged-over-20-last-week-natural-gas-equities-surged-even
Summary
Dry natural gas prices broke out to the upside last week.
Natural gas equities outperformed, as they have been doing for a majority of 2020.
Bigger picture, natural gas equities are leading dry natural gas prices, which are leading commodity prices, which will lead to inflation.
This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, The Contrarian. Get started today »
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria.
-- Sir John Templeton
Introduction
I have been bullish on dry natural gas prices and natural gas equities for a long time. Two recent published examples of this bullish include the recent published article, "Antero Resources Is A Generational Buy: Working Through The Near-Term Debt Maturities", and "EQT Corp Surges As The Bearish Natural Gas Thesis Is Dead", which was published on March 17 in the heart of the declines in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA).
Natural gas equities featured in these articles, including Antero Resources (AR), Antero Midstream (AM), and EQT Corp (EQT), have performed admirably year-to-date in 2020, with AR shares rising 37.9% year-to-date through August 7, AM shares rising 9.3% YTD, outperforming all of their pipeline peers, and EQT shares rising 58.4% YTD./
Just an observation -
Maybe huge demands for commodities on the horizon....so many cars on road now new where we live...things slowly returning to normalcy unless another hugh covid19 outbreaks...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/853437/000174177320002231/c497.htm
97 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated March 1, 2020
The fund’s Board of Directors has approved changes to the fund’s name, investment objective, fee structure, and overall investment program, which includes changing to an index strategy that tracks the returns of its current benchmark index. These changes are expected to become effective on October 1, 2020, subject approval by the fund’s shareholders of change to the investment objective.
Effective October 1, 2020, the fund will change its name from the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund to the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Index Fund. In connection with the name change and to align with the shift to an index strategy, the fund’s investment objective is proposed to be changed to seek to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.
Effective October 1, 2020, subject to approval by the fund’s shareholders of the change to the fund’s investment objective, the following changes will be made to the prospectus:
The investment objective on page 1 will be revised as follows:
The fund seeks to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fee table and expense example on pages 1—2 will be revised as follows...

Hank, excellent response. Over the years I have seen many investors that make changes in their portfolio based on prediction and opinions of "experts" just to find later they were wrong.
I don't blame these journalists their intention is to grab attention with their headlines, after all, every time you click and read they get paid. Probably over 95% of article are useless, reparative, recyclable and not actionable.
Just to name one, Gundlach, the bond "king", predicted that the 10 year treasury will be at 6% in 2021 (link).
This is why I don't pay attention to any of these. As a trader I just follow charts, uptrends and prices but I'm in the market invested at 99+% about 97-98% of the time.

Your hindsight is impeccable 1K. I’ll give you that. I’ll try here to answer your somewhat condescending questions:
- I’m by nature a conservative investor. Within a diversified portfolio, I‘ve always maintained some significant exposure to equities. So nothing’s changed just because my analysis tonight concluded we’re running on “borrowed time“. Considering 22 years retired, I’m likely a lot more more aggressively invested than many in that situation - and less so than others.
- Generally, I feel it’s foolish to try and invest according to a reading the macro tea leaves. I’ve said as much here on more than one occasion. I rarely do it - perhaps on occasion for small speculative gambits.
- Yes, there have always been doomsayers: Granville, Dent, Rogers, Faber, Hussman to cite a few. I’ve listened to all of them . Never fell in love with any. Although I’ll say Rogers is certainly a glib and engaging talker.
- Short the market? Not me! Takes nerves of steel. And greater insights into specific companies than I possess. Do any of my funds short? Probably. In particular alternative fund TMSRX (about 10% of my holdings) has the ability to short.
- You didn’t ask, but my post was not intended or offered as actionable investment advise. Indeed, it suggested there might be many more years of rising asset prices.
I hope I’ve answered your questions.
So what are you overlooking here in your rather derisive and dismissive antipathy towards my thoughts? Probably the 35+ year downtrend in global interest rates. Do you really think the past 35+ years of generally rising asset prices would have played out that way had the 10-year risen from below 1% to over 10% during those years instead of the other way around? And do you choose to ignore the massive and unprecedented Federal Reserve interventions, both during the ‘07-‘09 market wreck and again after the March pummeling? Why would you find their propping up wine growers and auto sales companies that far-fetched? BOJ has purchased stocks in the past. And our own Federal Reserve is currently buying / owns corporate bonds rated just one notch above junk.
BTW- You’ll be glad to learn the Pres. is now talking up further tax cuts - apparently to be enacted by by decree.
MORE TAX CUTS COMING?

If you mouse over the curve, you'll get the 0.087% figure (roughly the 0.1% you eyeballed). Yes, sir, that's about a half buck every six months. And you'd have to reinvest that king's ransom yourself to get it to compound.
Be of good cheer - it's tax free. Unlike that Big Mac.

Thank you @msf for the chart.
Just eye-balling it, the % rate on a 2-year top-grade muni appears to be 0.1% - That can’t be right? But if it were, than a $1,000 muni held to maturity (for 2 years) would yield $2 (plus a few pennies compounding). That’s less than what a Big Mac costs. (And, after 2 years the Big Mac would have gone up in price.) Sounds like a vicious downward spiral.

Love OJ's pictures.

Shares of Kodak plunged Monday after a US agency suspended a loan intended to support the former photo giant's launch of a new pharmaceutical venture.
...
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Kodak's disclosures about the loans and is expected to probe the company's awarding of stock option grants to executives on July 27.

Agence-France Presse wire story.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-shares-slump-us-loan-195029583.html
WSJ article cited in report:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-agency-sidelines-planned-765-million-loan-to-kodak-amid-probes-11597018204