Okay, so these MMFs have higher risk than bank accounts (" they don’t come with the guarantees that are offered by bank products"), and they offer lower rates than bank accounts (the highest yield mentioned is VMFXX at 0.92%, well less than the 1%+ one can get at banks).
Nor is it mentioned mentioned is that all MMFs, including government funds, can take seven days to honor a redemption the same as for bank savings accounts (Regulation D). Thus they're technically not quite as liquid as checking ("demand deposit") accounts (or the "cash' in the subject line).
So what's the point that the article is trying to make?
The article also conflates Treasury MMFs with government MMFs. Some government MMFs do hold only "Treasury securities [] backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" as the article states. But others, like VMFXX, can hold other paper including government obligations and repurchase agreements.
As the Vanguard prospectus for this fund notes: "Repurchase agreements carry several risks. For instance, if the seller is unable to repurchase the securities as promised, a Fund may experience a loss when trying to sell the securities to another buyer." Not quite as safe as a Treasury fund or cash.
Nearly any product, including government MMFs, has good uses. It's just that this article gets many of the attributes wrong. IMHO the main virtue of gov MMFs is that brokers allow you to use them for your trading ("core", "transaction") account. Convenient, and for those worried about every last ounce of risk, safer than prime MMFs. (Or so the theory goes - there's the looming debt ceiling risk.)

FYI: Fidelity Investments Inc has started allowing clients to use its website to view their holdings of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies held through digital wallet provider Coinbase, the company said on Wednesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fidelity-investments-bitcoin-idUSKBN1AP0AO

@lssegal The problem I have with your "I'm not a scientist" statement is it sounds too familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_a_scientist
https://nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html
businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-on-im-not-a-scientist-2014-11
People on this board are not mutual fund managers or financial academics yet they talk about mutual funds and financial studies all the time.

To various posters:
How about taking your personal sniper attacks off the forum.

+1

@lssegal +1!! The other important aspect is who bears the cost and who derives the benefits in many of these discussions. In many cases those who are most adamantly in favor are the ones who get a disproportionate share of the benefits and who want someone else to bear a disproportionate share of the cost. I'm not suggesting that's the case with climate change specifically but I think there's a good deal of truth behind the assertion.

If you have 5 or 6% college debt I am doubtful that you should invest in the stock market unless you have the possibility ofa match in your 401k.A great many experts such as John Bogle think the average return over the next 10 years will be about 6% . THis makesa riskless ^% paying off loans apretty good idea./ And, if your debt is say 3 0r 4% that seems like a close decision.I made my first stock market investment about 30 and it was years before I had as much as 20K in the markett

The HY corp spread is within 20 basis points of a 10-year low: definitely not a bargain at these levels. Some of the multi-sector funds many of us own have small allocations to HY, which imho is plenty, for now, with the valuations so stretched.

From the people who brought you the Merger Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1572617/000089418917003980/wcmalt-credit_485a.htm
(WCM = Westchester Capital Management)

I don't see much compelling about junk corporates now. It was mentioned in February of 2016 that junk may be the place to be.as well it was with junk and bank loans leading the way throughout the rest of that year. But why all of sudden now after its long run? At the least, there are better opportunities elsewhere in fixed income now.

@lssegal The climate doesn't care about anyone's politics:
https://nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
The changes wrought by carbon emissions will affect every sector of the economy and all of life on earth, but especially the energy sector, the utility sector and yes, financial services, particularly insurers who already realize no matter what our president or his new EPA director claim that it is a dire threat to their businesses' risk modeling. Climate change is mutual fund related, and will affect financial market returns. Frankly, it is everything related. Even the military, historically the most politically conservative government entity, recognizes the threat climate change poses to national security: military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/trump-may-doubt-climate-change-pentagon-sees-it-looming-threat.html
Since the threat is so dire, discussion of it belongs on an investing website. It is most certainly a long-term risk to the financial markets, so much so that the CEO of the world's largest money manager, BlackRock's Larry Fink, considers addressing it one of his priorities: https://fnlondon.com/articles/goldman-and-blackrock-chiefs-lead-finances-revolt-on-trumps-climate-call-20170602
You may disagree with the tactics used by the EDF, but historically government and corporate leaders haven't addressed long-term issues like climate change effectively because they are compensated by short-term results. So cooperation may not be as effective as holding their feet to the fire via lawsuits. In any case the notion that such matters aren't worthy of discussion on an investment site is absurd. It will affect everyone's investments, even short-term via regulation globally or the lack thereof locally.

JoJo, agree completely. Even today, as a debt-free GenX'er with a nice salary and comfortable but modest lifestyle, that once-a-week dinner delivery on the weekend still feels like a treat to me. But to do it every day? Sheesh.
Ahd the uber-expensive daily fru-fru drinks, I don't get it ... let alone waiting 15m on life for a $3 cup of drip coffee. REALLY??

I agree w/the comments above. I'll also add, maybe they don't have a ton of disposable money to invest b/c they're paying off student loans?

But they have enough to blow on booze, frappuccinos and eating out 5 times a week...

The newer pimco funds (PDI, PCI) are trading at the highest premium/lowest discount in their limited histories. Older funds, such as PTY, are not at record premia, but are still fairly expensive. As a matter of fact, any decent offering in the CEF world is now too expensive for an entry. This will change, however. It always does. Opportunities usually come more than once annually. Some funds were cheap between april 2013 through february 2016.
@davidmoran historically, CEFs have been trading at a discount due to the higher fee structure. As a result, the language evolved to refer to widening or narrowing "discount". Much of the wrapper funds are still at a discount, especially equities or anything else that could be accessed cheaper via a competing wrapper, such as an ETF or OEF. The recent stampede into the wrapper will end badly for those who came late to the party. The best thing is to wait out in PIMIX or other cheaper alternative at NAV. The discounts will widen again.

@Maurice,
It looks like the investor class (ARTFX) is available for a min investment of $1,000.00.
Skeet

Drove over to Fidelity and asked them about APDFX, among other things that wanted to inquire about. Told that the initial minimum for an IRA is $250,000. So that ended that.

Not much help, but at Schwab, the min is "just" $100K.
At Fidelity, if you look at the "Fees and Distributions" tab for a fund, you'll find the mins listed. Here's that tab for APDFX.

Most investors want know if their asset allocation is correctly set to their risk tolerance until we get into a severe market downdraft. If one waits too long in the downdraft to start to trim their positions, raising cash, then they might indeed be better off to just ride out the storm. However, I have certain positions I plan to trim and others I plan to raise (including cash) in a stock market decline. The consept is to move money that is invested in the area of greater risk on the right side of the portfolio left towards areas of investment with less risk.
That is why my asset allocation has investment ranges for my portfolio's areas of investment. For the cash area my ranges are from 15% to 25%, for my income area the ranges are from 25% to 35%, for my growth & income area the ranges are form 30% to 40% and for the growth area the ranges are from 10% to 20%. In extreme market declines cash can be temporarily held above the 25% mark while most of the trimming would come from the growth area of the portfolio since it consist mostly of all equity capital appreciation type funds where the greatest risk is found. I use my market barometer as a tool to help me throttle my asset allocation and rebalance it from time-to-time based upon my market read. Currently, if I were to completely sell out the growth area that would raise my cash allocation to about 35% if all were moved to cash. In the rebound, I'd load the growth area while reducing cash. Most likely, I'd stand pat in the income and growth & income areas of the portfolio.
In my book ... Buy & Hold does not mean hold forever. Even Mr. Buffett makes holdings adjustments within his massive portfolio form time-to-time based upon his firm's market read.
I have already developed my market downdraft management plan just in case the market storm arrives. Usually, these market storms come quickly and are unexpected.
Are you prepared?
Old_Skeet

Article grays out.
Funds mentioned:
TIGAX ("broad all-cap fund")
DFCSX ("European small-cap exposure")
TVIVX (is Third Avenue even alive?)
MISAX ("ranked in top 10% in its category on a five-year basis")
GVIEX

@BobC: I bought CIM in June of 2015 @$14.55 per share, and CIM-A in November of 2016 at $24.56. I have a SLO in for CIM at @15.00, and have no worries with CIM-A will wait for 2021 call
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Be honest with yourself: If you can’t hold on during a bear market, it’s time to reduce exposure.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/everyones-a-buy-and-hold-investor-now-but-can-you-stay-that-way-1502071861?tesla=y

FYI: 9This is a follow-up article.)
SportsETFs is an issuer of equity ETFs that have exposure to the sports industry. The company's first ETF, the ProSports Sponsors ETF (FANZ),
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/new-etf-jumps-pro-sports?nopaging=1
M* Snapshot FANZ:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/BATS/FANZ/quote.html

Just curious, Ted, how you look at CIM. Fixed-income? What would be your trigger to sell? Looking at trading volume, currently at 1.5 million shares, and only 150,000 in 2008 when the bottom fell out of the mortgage market. Looks like it would have been darned difficult to unload it and not suffer through the 77% loss. The share price of $74.50 in December 2007 vs. $18.75 today. Ouch! You obviously have done well, but hope you have an exit strategy...just in case. Regards.