Gosh, Solarcity 5y bonds, if you can go 5y, and perhaps others similar.
This is assuming BERIX and VWINX are too risky for your taste.

I own BERIX and VWENX in the moderate portion of my portfolio (10-15 years away).

I wonder about recency problems in such articles, how old Carlson is and what he himself has invested in or followed historically. Weitz had spectacular results in the later 1990s, I know firsthand, and made his name bigtime. So I was curious to see how this vaunted fund here had done against other known-good but overpriced vehicles like YAFFX and GABEX. Sure enough, if you go back to summer '97, WPVLX is awesome. But guess what happens if your start point is summer '99?
Moreover his 08-09 performance was famously worse than others, causing large abandonment.

My interpretation of not taking "a big risk with principal", and of "near cash", and of "3-5 years" is that one is willing to live with short term fluctuations and minor dips in principal, but expects to come out positive at the end of 3-5 years.
That puts pretty tight limits on what one can do with the money. Otherwise, I wouldn't consider it part of a "cash" allocation. In other words, I tend to be a bit more cautious with cash. YMMV.
So I like the NTAUX suggestion (I wasn't familiar with this fund). Unfortunately, while it beats your current 0.50% taxable yield (since it's a muni fund), its 0.50% tax-free yield still doesn't beat FDIC-insured internet banks (yielding around 1% taxable now).
I also like FPNIX (and have suggested it before myself). I'm comfortable with its junk bond (BB) rating, but only because I've followed this fund for years (never invested). Otherwise, I'd be leery of delving into junk now, especially with my cash allocation.
Another thought is to use defined maturity bond funds. Here's an AAII paper explaining them, discussing the pros and cons, and listing (most of) the current options. (It omits the older American Century Zero Coupon series, which will be more volatile because with zeros, duration = maturity).
If you're fairly sure you won't need the cash for 4-5 years, you might use an "immunization strategy". You can buy a fund like FMCFX (maturity 2019, muni bond fund, SEC yield 1.13%; it beats iShare's 2019 IBMH's 1.07% SEC yield w/o bid/ask spread); or Guggenheim's BSCJ (2019, corporate inv. grade, SEC yield 1.83%).

FYI: Fees are no friend to fund investors.
Over the long term, fees are among the best predictors performance, according to Morningstar. That means paying up for a stock picker is going to leave you fighting uphill from the get go.
Greg Carlson, Morningstar’s senior analyst covering equity strategies on the manager research team, finds just four — count ‘em — funds that charge above-average fees but still attain the research firm’s highest rating.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/04/4-pricier-funds-that-are-worth-their-salt/tab/print/

If Mr Gross was of his stature in years past, this article would be generating a lot of buzz on this board. But now he's just another prophet of pessimism, the likes of many we have seen since 1982 (not sure where it gets 1981) Still, an interesting missive by Mr Gross and let's face it, at some point these talking heads will get it right about the End of the end. On a personal note, albeit still 2 years away from the dreaded 70 of Mr. Gross, I can certainly empathize with his phobia of being 70. Even though I am as active and healthy as I was 50 years ago, unlike turning 40, 50, or 60, I simply am unable to put a positive spin on turning the big 70. Yuck!
Edit: where does he get that " fully invested investors wound up with 20 times as much money as when they began" (since 1981 and the Dow at 900) It's much more than that when you factor in the compounding of reinvested dividends.

"I put 10% of a price target fund (an appropriate year) as a control on how I was doing.While probably not as capable as some on this site I suspect I am at least average. Some years I outperformed, other years I didn't My underperformance in recent years occurred for two major reasons. Too much in emerging markets in recent years and using more stable income than a bond fund. Both strategies were wrong in recent years/I think you have to be very capable to have a diversified portfolio that will outperform a decent target fund over a longish period of time."
---
Jerry: I assume your reference is to T. Rowe Price. Yep - they do a great job overall. I like not only their retirement funds, consisting largely of holdings in other Price funds, but also most of their "fund-of-funds." During healthy markets it's difficult for an individual to outperform these. What you give up is the ability to overweight sectors (be it cash, currencies, gold or whatever) that you think are undervalued. I'm not sure that's a great idea anyway.
Currently hold TRRIX and RPSIX. I read somewhere once that they give investors a slight break when they determine fees for these funds, figuring it's cheaper for them to administer a single fund for someone rather than having the person own, say, a half dozen different funds. I haven't been able to re-confirm that however. That would mean you can own several funds under the umbrella of one of these at a lower ER than if you owned each fund individually.
The strong performance of their fund-of-funds, including the target date series, is likely related to three factors: (1) a strong underlying fund line-up, (2) attractive fees on these funds, (3) excellent calls when it comes to underweighting or overweighting specific areas inside their fund-of-funds. In addition, I think you'll also find Price generally takes a somewhat more aggressive position on the amount of equity exposure an individual should undertake at various stages of their life.
My one concern about all target date funds is the glide path that moves to increasingly higher bond allocations over time. This near 0% interest rate environment is unprecedented as far as I know. And where I think JohnC and others have a valid point is that one can own the same types of investments these target date funds hold at a substantially lower cost. In theory, anyway, that should translate into better long-term performance.
Regards

FYI: When you hear market strategists use the words “underweight” and “overweight,” what exactly do they mean?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-underweight-or-overweight-in-the-market-1430709410

Hi Derf.
No accounting for survivorship-bias, unfortunately. Yes, it can detract from the ranking...bad fund, close it/merge it...raise your family score.
Ditto for category drift. Ditto for funds of differing ages. Funds of differing share classes. Funds mis-categorized. Funds with recent manager changes. Fund with different AUM. Funds with new adviser ownership.
All that said, I still find it a useful measure. But then, most rankings become a flash point for debate.
I think we beat the Turner anomaly to death in David's announcement post:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/20721/the-may-issue-is-up#latest
I'll close this post, so you can post further thoughts/feedback to that one.

FYI: Differences in the way indexes are weighted will make similar-looking funds diverge.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nonidentical-twins-of-etfs-1430709428

"Target-date funds have selected dates at which time the assets will be liquidated"
Once again we find a financial writer who doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.
Target date funds' dates refer to the general date of one's retirement. They tend to come in two varieties: one with a glide path that reaches its terminal allocation at the retirement date (e.g. 70/30 or 80/20), and one where the fund holds a gradually declining amount of equities for 10-15 years into retirement (in anticipation of a 25-35 year need). Either way, these funds are not liquidated.
There are two types of funds I'm aware of that are liquidated on a specified date (excluding UITs that pretty much by definition terminate). One type is target maturity bond funds, like the American Century Zero Coupon Bond Funds, or Fidelity's newer Defined Maturity Funds, or Guggenheim BulletShare ETFs. Here's a good Vanguard paper on defined-maturity bond funds.
Another type includes some managed payout funds. Managed payout funds are funds that are designed to work like annuities (if all goes well - they're not guaranteed). Some, like Vanguard's, are designed to pay out in perpetuity. Others, like Fidelity's Income Replacement Funds, are designed to terminate on a specific date. These funds hold a mix of equity and debt, and are liquidated on the specified date.
That subtype of managed payout fund is the only one I know that match the description of a "target date fund" given in the article here.

Hi bee,
A nice lower Standard Deviation combination throwing off some nice income, is a combination of VWINX and PONDX

Since 2008 that combination would have improved a stand alone VWINX portfolio:
(click on image to view more clearly)

bee, I *rarely* buy anything recommended by another as I like to do my own research/monitoring. But I must admit, much of the reason I had a good 2012 (better than the stock indexes and junk bonds) was entirely your doing. You were a vocal proponent of PONDX back then and I jumped aboard as it met my all my trendiness criteria. It was one smooth ride. So a belated thanks!

I believe CathyG...wherever she may be... was the first mentioned PONDX here at MFO. Investments work until they don't. This one has had some legs. Thanks to good management at Pimco (Dan Ivascyn).

As to your question the research on various tight stops on non volatile trending markets, open end junk bond funds in particular, and then when to reenter was given to me by a fellow poster here. He and I have been e-mailing back and forth on junk bonds for many years now. So not to sound like a ..., but wouldn't feel right sharing the fruits of his labor without his permission. The basics is when a heretofore strongly trending non volatile market declines a certain percentage from any new highs, there is a greater percentage that decline will continue further. I recall that methodolgy got me out of PONDX in 2013 with most of the early 2013 gains intact and it eventually went on to much further declines before stabilizing and rising again, albeit never as high as my exit point..

I'm not looking to get my kneecap bust so I'll stop you right there...thanks.

Good point John.
If you are reading this board (and therefore Ted's link) .... you probably shouldn't buy these funds.

I put 10% of a price target fund (an appropriate year) as a control on how I was doing.While probably not as capable as some on this site I suspect I am at least average. Some years I outperformed, other years I didn't My underperformance in recent years occurred for two major reasons. Too much in emerging markets in recent years and using more stable income than a bond fund. Both strategies were wrong in recent years/I think you have to be very capable to have a diversified portfolio that will outperform a decent target fund over a longish period of time

I know this topic has been tossed around numerous times on this board, but I'm always looking for suggestions on what to do with my cash. I'm 50 years old with more than $100,000 sitting in banks and credit unions earning about 0.50 % in interest. I know it will erode in value over time due to inflation, so I would like to beat that at the very least without taking a big risk with principal. I already have nearly $1M in a conservative portfolio (35% Bonds) (40% equities) (25% cash) so I'm looking to do something with a portion of the cash. Part of it should stay in an emergency fund, but I have about $100,000 that doesn't need to be used for at least 3-5 years. I call it "near cash." I've been looking at a few suggestions on the board, such LALDX, OSTIX and RSIVX. It appears that interest rates will be higher over the next few years so I do have to take that into consideration with any bond funds. Any other suggestions? Thanks in advance.

bee, I *rarely* buy anything recommended by another as I like to do my own research/monitoring. But I must admit, much of the reason I had a good 2012 (better than the stock indexes and junk bonds) was entirely your doing. You were a vocal proponent of PONDX back then and I jumped aboard as it met my all my trendiness criteria. It was one smooth ride. So a belated thanks!
As to your question the research on various tight stops on non volatile trending markets, open end junk bond funds in particular, and then when to reenter was given to me by a fellow poster here. He and I have been e-mailing back and forth on junk bonds for many years now. So not to sound like an ..., but wouldn't feel right sharing the fruits of his labor without his permission. The basics is when a heretofore strongly trending non volatile market declines a certain percentage from any new highs, there is a greater percentage that decline will continue further. I recall that methodolgy got me out of PONDX in 2013 with most of the early 2013 gains intact and it eventually went on to much further declines before stabilizing and rising again, albeit never as high as my exit point..

I guess Mr. Icahn was on vacation on another planet last June, when junk really was high-priced at a spread of 3.4 and yield of 5.2, versus 4.6 and 6.1 now. Is he confusing energy junk with the broader category? Maybe - lower down in the article, it sounds like he's worried about his energy investments.
Not to imply that HY couldn't take a fall anytime, like every other stretched asset in the land ...

Thanks for the link to a grand piece. It also had a link to the Wall Street Week show just before the 1987 crash, which I enjoyed now more than then. Marty was really expecting a bad day ...

I had read that article and while not necessarily disagreeing (Marty Fridson the junk bond guru feels likewise) markets don't usually top amid gloom but ebulience. It's encouraging that junk is outperforming not just everything in bondland in 2015, but many of the major stock indexes also.

Mark makes a very good point. Maybe I'm wrong, but my sense is we have very few "stay-put" type investors posting on this board. There's one notable exception (And I'd rather not go there, thank you.)
Don't mean to suggest we're a bunch of highly active market timers. That I don't know. On the other hand, I doubt many here have held mostly the same funds year-in and year-out for 15 - 25 years or longer without at least varying the allocations to each. I'll confess I haven't.