FYI: Not so long ago, one cash investment seemed virtually indistinguishable from the next. With the Fed funds rate barely positive as recently as late 2016, most investors considered their low-yielding CDs and money market funds dead money--a necessary parking place for near-term expenditures, or a place to hunker down if they were feeling fearful. Nothing more.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/870185/wheres-the-best-place-to-park-your-cash.html

FYI: Billionaire PIMCO founder Bill Gross allegedly used dead fish and prank smell sprays to make his ex-wife's life miserable following their divorce.
Regards,
Ted
http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/billionaire-bill-gross-ex-wife-says-he-tormented-her-with-dead-fish-after-divorce-2018-6-1027173885

Yikes! A 6 year corporate bond with 9%+ YTM? Great interest, so long as they pay it. Good luck getting your principal back. At 24%+ YTC, I wouldn't count on it getting called soon.
The cbonds page cites Goldwasser (Brussels) as the source for price quotes. Here's Goldwasser's page (translated via google) for the bond (give it about a minute to load):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://www.oblis.be/nl/bond/hertz-corp-55-15102024-usd-538502
According to both the cbonds page and Goldwasser, it's currently trading around 83 (100 is "par" for bonds). Did I mention that any gain you might realize due to the market discount is taxed as ordinary income?

Are hertz Corp bond have good place as a private div player
http://cbonds.com/emissions/issue/250145

I’ve also shifted 10% of the total assets in our 401K plans into the stable value fund. It’s currently yielding about 2% and it’s been rising. It has actually outperformed the bond index fund in our 401K plan over the past 1,3 and 5 years. If you have a 401K, this is a great option during the current market.

An update to above CD post- First Republic Bank in SF now has 10 month @2% and 20 month @2.5%. So things are starting to move.
FWIW, I'm guessing that they are looking at 3 to 3.5% in 20 months.
ADD: Current @ 4:45 PDST, from the WSJ:

Powell Says Solid Economy Supports More Fed Rate Rises
"Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said economic growth has built a strong case for continuing to lift interest rates"

@Tarwheel- Yes, same here. I've started with a 13 month @ 2% and intend to keep adding every .5% or so.

Sven - or you can look at different Funds that you prefer, look at their top 5 -10 holdings, and buy the individual bonds there...most of them hold these bonds for quite sometimes. The other options are to look at corp cusip [something that you like], do google search on them, read the annual reports, search if they have history of bankrupcy, and consider buying them. I usually buy the one that have multiple large companies that hold them. You cannot go wrong w/ ATT corp bonds, MACYS, chevron bonds, etc... They survived the last crash and probably will survive next one. I just don't like to pay the 1-2% yearly fees for these funds.
Or just get ETFs bonds [from PIMCO for instance] they may have similiar returns to their funds and minimal fees.

@STB65, I would stay with FFRHX in the near term. Floating rate funds are high yield bond funds (aka junk bonds), but they tend to do better than corporate, mortgage and treasury bond funds in rising rate environment. Don't know how the transfer from Fidelity into Vanguard would be like. I would recommend you talk with your administrator (university) on the options available. If you decide to rollover your 403(B) into Vanguard as brokerage or other firms, the brokerages have many fund choices besides the one you have now.

@catch22, Just about all foreign funds and bonds are down for the year. The US large cap funds are up 3-5% while the smaller caps have done better, presumably their business are more domestically oriented and less impacted by the tariff. At some point, the tariff impact will spread to all supply chain even the smallest caps. This is going to be a tough year.

FYI: The US Dollar index is now up 7.4% since its 2018 closing low hit on February 15th. This morning we just wanted to provide a heads up that the Dollar is breaking above another key resistance level at 95. The index had couldn’t break through 95 last October/November, and it failed once again at 95 at the end of May. The break above resistance at 95 this morning clears out additional supply and provides room to run towards 97 in the near term.
Remember, dollar strength benefits companies that generate most or all of their revenues domestically, while it hurts large-cap companies that generate large portions of their sales outside of the US. This is a key reason why the small-cap space has been outperforming over the last few months — small-caps are much more “domestic” in nature versus large-cap, global behemoths.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/us-dollar-breaking-above-another-key-resistance-level/

FYI: Most millennials can’t answer simple financial questions correctly, according to a new nationwide survey. Only 17 percent of working Americans ages 25-40 could answer five basic financial literacy questions from Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. (MassMutual) Foundation’s FutureSmart Digital program correctly, according to the report. The questions were on topics including credit scores, compound interest and investing.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/millennials-lack-basic-financial-knowledge--massmutual-finds-39299.html?print

The situation is escalating as investors are pulling money from EM ETFs that have over 30% exposure to China. See Ted's earlier post.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/41758/investors-are-bailing-from-emerging-market-etfs#latest

Very busy at this house; but take a bit of time to catch this or that for the markets.
The tariff wars (pending or otherwise) are receiving the threats from other countries; as in, "okay, slam a tariff; we'll play the game" and await you "crying uncle".
So, we have Canada, Mexico, EU, India and China as the major announcers OF "tariffs to you", too.
SP-500, to use as a U.S. gauge, is so-so YTD; and one knows a lot of this gain is from the better performing sectors, tech., health, con. discretionary...............so, if these areas start to go to heck; well others suffer, too.
One finds the global today (June 18) not being very happy, not a trend yet, eh?
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor?orderBy=percentChange&orderDir=desc
I'll provide a flash back from 10 years ago (June 16, 2008, Monday).
Our portfolio had its high value point on Oct. 31, 2007 (Halloween Day). International holdings had begun to become more erratic, but most U.S. equity was still fairly happy.
News, data and related going into the end of 2007, especially in Dec. 2007 kept my attention. We watched an erratic equity market for another 6 months; along with the news and data. December of 2007 had very large swings in daily equity.
On June 16, 2008, Monday; we sold 87% of our portfolio.
An existing bond fund holding was kept in place, PTTRX . The equity sells monies were moved into either "stable value" or money market, depending upon the choices at the time. During this period, both stable value and MM were yielding about 5% APR.
With a smile and a head shake I thought about the date this past weekend and being 10 years out from June, 2008.
Currently, we're 51% equity, 95% which is U.S.; all being in tech. and healthcare.
We'll be watching this week more so, as time allows.
Good fortune to all,
Catch

With the recent tax law changes, you have to be careful, especially if you're living in a high tax state.
Using the same yields as in the article, 2.88% Treasury and 2.52% for a national muni fund, the after tax yields can be close, and may not compensate for the additional risk of the single A rated Vanguard etf VTEB.
Take a single tax payer in California, with $60K taxable income. Because of the $10K SaLT limitation on deductions, this property owner can't deduct the state taxes on the muni bond fund.
After tax yield on Treasury: (1 - 22%) x 2.88% = 2.24%
After tax yield on muni fund: (1 - 9.3%) x 2.52% = 2.28%
Buying an individual in-state muni bond can get rid of the local tax, but it adds single security risk. Building a whole portfolio of individual munis can help with that, though that requires a substantial commitment and there's still single state risk.
All in all, there are several factors to consider. Even with current rates, the best choice may not be quite as obvious as the article suggests.

JG has said repeatedly, as have others, that the corporate debt explosion is looking like it could be the trigger for the next crisis + recession ... although the recession indicators he talks about are not signalling anything dramatic on the near horizon. (That of course doesn't rule out an intracyclical slowdown like, for example, in 2015, the kind of slowdown ECRI is projecting.)
The 6% T comment is the one comment he's made in quite a while that sounds more like an assertion without any real support rather than the usual well-documented insights in his webcasts. Really, to get an idea of what he's up to, someone would need to tune in to at least a couple of full webcasts.
His ego's pretty puffed up, yes, but the economic, financial, and investment insights are mostly close to the mark and overall useful. The 6% thing is a real outlier, IMHO.

Seems my ears are burning.
ISTM that Fidelity has started using Danoff (and to a lesser extent Tillinghast) to pitch funds, much as it used to use Lynch.

Fidelity used to care (at least to some extent) about overloading Danoff.
Fidelity closed Contra in April 1998 so that Danoff could "continue to manage the fund effectively given his preference for mid-cap stocks" (Fidelity quote). Ain't that description a hoot? Contra's AUM at the time was 1/4 its current size ($32B vs. $128B).
Fidelity reopened it only toward the end of 2000, after the fund had recently dropped 9% and experienced major outflows. Fidelity stated that the reopening was "to achieve a neutral cash flow".
Fidelity pulled Danoff off of VIP Contrafund at the end of 2007
Fidelity again closed Contra in April 2006. It reopened the fund only toward the end of 2008, after it had dropped 40% over the previous 12 months. Fidelity stated that the reopening was because it had "not been able to generate sufficient levels of new sales to offset current and future redemptions ... [Fidelity hoped to] bring some equilibrium to cash flows [so that Danoff could] effectively direct [his] investment strateg[y]."
---
But that was then. These are the 2010s, when Fidelity is trying to staunch the outflow out of its actively managed AUM.
In 2012, Fidelity launched its Fidelity Series funds to improve its floundering Freedom Funds (funds of funds). At the time, M* wrote: "While it's still unclear how Danoff and Tillinghast's new strategies will be used in the Freedom Fund portfolios, they'll likely at least displace some of the struggling funds and ultimately bolster the series' underlying lineup."
Admittedly, FVWSX (and its clone, FAMGX) are small tasks for Danoff, currently with "just" $6.7B AUM and $1B AUM respectively. At $33M, it hardly seems worth mentioning the Fidelity Flex clone(?) created in 2017.
Fidelity started selling comingled pools to 401k plans, since employers were leaving "regular" mutual funds. So in 2014, Danoff was given Contrafund Commingled Pool to manage, now holding $23B.
Just last month, after a decade away from VIP Contrafund, Danoff was handed back this $20B fund to manage.
So why not sell the Danoff name in Canada as well? It's not as though Fidelity Canada didn't already have enough managers. Oh, wait.
https://www.fidelity.ca/fidca/en/products/pm/list
Thus, in 2017 Danoff got his first Canadian charge. Now comes this second one.
Compare this history with how Fidelity has treated Steve Wymer. His FDGRX fund was closed the same time as FCNTX in 2006, but never reopened. Like Danoff, he was taken off of his VIP fund, but he never had to go back to it. No Canadian funds for him either.
Fidelity puts one manager front of the public and lets the other quietly run the superior fund.
---
It used to be that New Insights was the preferred Danoff fund (assuming one could get in without the load), because it was smaller and supposedly more nimble. But it hasn't worked out so well - a three star fund with a performance rating of neutral (average). Danoff does not walk on water.
Before buying the sizzle, check what's on the grill. It might be prime, might not be. I don't know, but I'd do a little research first.

I'd start to believe and settle for a nice ten year chart related to what the author is jabbering.
About 10 tickers on a nice chart would be nice, eh?
Oh, well; if one has been invested in large U.S. growth for 10, 5 or 3 years you're do'in okay.

Nice find. Though it sounds more like speculation ("probably because of technical difficulties") than hard facts.
If we're going to play the guessing game, I'd go with a variant of their secondary speculation: "the complete lack of notification to fund shareholders on the first go-around!"
Given that so many people have trouble understanding how share prices move when there are the usual distributions, Fidelity likely saw a load of customers freaking out when the first split occurred. Fidelity may have reconsidered the second round of splits as a consequence.
This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that the (retail) explanation page cited by Ted is a pdf created May 31st. That was almost three weeks after the split; the timing suggests an unexpected necessary response to investors' concerns. (The institutional page Shadow cited was created earlier, on the date of the first split.)
Fidelity Monitor did go a bit overboard in stating that this split was unprecedented. I've given examples elsewhere of fund splits by other companies. But fund splits aren't unprecedented even for Fidelity. On June 21, 1996, Fidelity Destiny II (FDETX) split 3-1.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/35331/0000035315-96-000019.txt
The explanation pages offered by Fidelity leave open the question of how rounding is handled. They give the example of FOCPX, where a share worth $113.18 is split into (exactly?) 10 shares worth $11.32 each. Either the split is not exactly 10-1 (and the explanation is incomplete), or shareholders might gain (or lose) value on the rounding.
It might be that Fidelity was going to do an exact 10-1 split and make up any rounding shortfalls. But then Fidelity found on June 8 (the planned split date), the cost was too high due to the way the roundings came out. It's as good a guess as anything else :-)

FYI: This may not be the best stock bull market in modern U.S. investment history. The 1950s and 1990s are formidable rivals. By any standards, though, tripling one's money in real terms, in less than a decade, rates as a great success. That this gain occurred during a period of low volatility, with few large reversals and subdued inflation, heightens the achievement.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/869684/the-great-bull-market-that-everybody-missed.html