I would rather not have to set up another account, especially a retirement account to buy Marcus CDs. While FDIC guarantees work ( I lost two CDS during the 1980s housing crisis) it does take some time to get your money back so there is some opportunity cost.
1.5% after taxes will not beat inflation, unless you think there is a massive deflation coming. There are a number of 1 year A+ bonds paying up to 2.5% from companies that are highly unlikely to go bankrupt in the next year ie, Kimberly Clark, Home Depot, Wells Fargo. If a good analyst knows what they are doing I think they can avoid bankrupcies and make more than that with longer duration bonds.

Certainly moving money around in IRAs is more difficult. In a post I made on another board I acknowledged that. Here, it just didn't occur to me that the question concerned IRAs. You're right that they're more problematic.
I used to work with someone who had taken delight in putting money into the most shaky Texan S&Ls in the early 80s. He said that he had gotten his money back a few days after each institution failed. Apparently your mileage did vary :-)
I am curious about the bonds you're looking at. I did a search on Fidelity's site, expanding the parameters to look for corporate bonds with maturities through Nov. 2029, and S&P or Moody's rating of at least BBB+/Baa1 respectively. Fidelity showed an inventory of 1139 bonds. When sorted by YTW (highest to lowest), the highest yielding WF bonds I found were:
94974BGL8, 2.922%, BBB+/A3, 7/22/27
94974BFY1, 2.558%, BBB+/A3, 6/3/26
95000U2D4, 2.497%, A-/A2, 1/24/29 (call 10/23/28)
95001D6P0, 2.314%, A-/A2, 4/17/28 (call 4/17/22)
949746SH5, 2.181%, A-/A2, 10/23/26
949746RW3, 2.108%, A-/A2, 4/22/26 (and callable)
94974BFN5, 1.975%, BBB+/A3, 8/15/23
94974BGP9, 1.940%, A-/A2, 9/29/25
No other Wells Fargo bonds yielding at least 1.92%. The bond I bolded comes closest to what you were describing - it should be called in two years (not quite a one year bond) and it is rated just a couple of notches below your A+ or better requirement.
Corporates rated A+ or better that I can find with YTW over 2.5% that may be redeemed sometime in 2021 are premium bonds callable next year. One expects premium bonds to be called, so I would count these as 1-1.5 year bonds; at least until problems prevent them from being called. So some possibilities do exist, albeit with liquidity risk (they may not be called, and there are added trading costs to sell rather than wait for redemption).
They're largely from health companies and banks - BP Capital, Credit Suisse, Barclays, UnitedHealth, Merck, etc. But no Wells Fargo, no Home Depot, no Kimberly Clark. The Schwab screener lets you look for issuers, and the only bonds it shows for these three companies are generally rated A-/A2 for Wells Fargo, or A/A2 for the others.

@MikeW JSCVX has been hurt this year like every other small-cap value fund from coronavirus. The point is in funds that are style box dependent whether the fund is beating its peers within the style box. JSCVX is this year, beating 81% of small-value funds in 2020. Other reasons to like it--below average 0.92% expense ratio for active management, moderate turnover 39% so lower trading costs, but most important I think is its tilt towards high quality small-value, more resilient small companies that can hopefully survive the recession we are entering. But this is by no means an "absolute returns" fund focused on positive returns each year. If small value is down, it will be down too. This is a relative return fund seeking to beat other small-value funds and the Russell 2000 Value index. Absolute return funds are a completely different animal.

@Bitzer SCPZX is one of the funds that did well this year esp in March, but M* is leery
"But such wins depend on precise timing, and mistakes can sting. The strategy slashed its 40% agency mortgage-backed securities stake to 4% in late 2008 and doubled down on commercial mortgage-backed securities (to 34%), for example, missing a rally in the former and getting hammered by the latter."
@msf I would rather not have to set up another account, especially a retirement account to buy Marcus CDs. While FDIC guarantees work ( I lost two CDS during the 1980s housing crisis) it does take some time to get your money back so there is some opportunity cost.
1.5% after taxes will not beat inflation, unless you think there is a massive deflation coming. There are a number of 1 year A+ bonds paying up to 2.5% from companies that are highly unlikely to go bankrupt in the next year ie, Kimberly Clark, Home Depot, Wells Fargo. If a good analyst knows what they are doing I think they can avoid bankrupcies and make more than that with longer duration bonds.
Unfortunately even the most conservation fund seems temped with asset backed securities and even emerging markets
I can't argue with cash, other than it pays very little and I want some diversification but also want to avoid the potential for capital loss.
Correlation are helpful in the big picture, but they are really backward looking as we don't know what is coming. While some individual companies will go under, the Feds entire reason to buy stuff is to keep the system from going under.

"The Momentum work remains negative despite a blue-chip rally, which briefly exceeded 30% last week." I don't think that accounts for the selective gains this week.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Considering world economies appeared to be ending in March, through April, markets don't look so bad ... S&P 500 off just 9.3%. Russell 3000 -10.4%. MSCI World ex USA -19.9%. NASDAQ near even. AGG +4.9%. TLT +23.8%
Can read a bit more here.

Valuation--who cares about that in 2020? Morgan Stanley Discovery A MACGX is up 20% this year and its portfolio has an average p-e of 85. https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/macgx/portfolio Morningstar just upgraded the fund's analyst rating. These managers are geniuses! I'm fairly certain MFOers will be talking about how good the fund is soon and want to buy it.

Yesterday's new "Major Trend Analysis" from the Leuthold Group was accompanied by good news and bad news.
Good news: while bull rallies occur in bear markets, it's almost unheard of for a bull rally to exceed 30% gains and then pull back into a bear. Typical "trap rallies" are in the 20% range. The only (admittedly uncomfortable) other occurrence of 30% rallies that collapsed were during the 85% skyrocket early in the Great Depression.
Bad news: "The blue chips’ bounce has driven their valuations back to levels that exceed all but the March 2000 and February 2020 market tops. If our S&P 500 metrics were to eventually retreat to 'only' the new-era valuation low that accompanied the mild recession of 2001, losses from here would be on the order of 30-35%."
Today's Shiller 10-year CAPE is 26.88, with "normal" being about 16; a sort of mid-point between the average and median values. The 10-year CAPE hit 27 in early 1929, then not again until mid-1996. It stayed at or above 27 for about a decade, declined to the low 20s after the GFC then worked steadily back up. The recent unpleasantness whacked about six points off the average.
David

But, the govt. does not give something to you for nothing. My RMD factor will be higher on my 2021 distribution than my 2020 because as you age the factor increases.

Hope springs eternal. Last fall, the IRS proposed new life expectancy figures that make the 2021 divisor even larger (smaller RMD) than the 2020 divisor is currently. Not only something for nothing, but something more than what you asked for.
The comment period closed January 7th. I don't know what the status is, though Kitces wrote that "it’s likely the changes to the tables will be finalized sometime in 2020 in the same or substantially similar form."
Here's the table of life expectancies, both current and proposed:
https://www.kitces.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Current-Vs-New-Uniform-Lifetime-Table-RMD-Percentage-Of-Acct-Balance.pdf
Proposed Regulation: Updated Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables Used for Purposes of Determining Minimum Required Distributions
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=IRS-2019-0050-0001
Comments (55): https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=IRS-2019-0050

Hi @ MrRuffles: You are correct sir ... about the 2020 IRA distrbution. My 12/31/2019 IRA valuation, I'm thinking, will be higher than my 12/31/2020 valuation. But, the govt. does not give something to you for nothing. My RMD factor will be higher on my 2021 distribution than on my 2020 because as you age the RMD factor increases. I'm still with my plan to take my full 2020 RMD. If the govt wanted to be graceous then they would have granted a three year waiver or made the 2020 distribution a non taxable event. They did nothing more than push the required distribution further out. Skeet

Given the overwhelming psychological component of market "valuation" I really don't believe that it is in any way possible to predict, with expectation of any reasonable accuracy, how a market may be "valued" in the face of unknowns which may have major financial impact.
There is likely some predictive ability when a market is cruising along a long-lasting slope, either up or down, as it gradually adjusts to the general financial environment, and some technical indicators may be helpful in such an environment.
In the present environment we have the known unknowns of a major worldwide pandemic with an undetermined end point, an election with the potential to replace a disruptive and dangerously unstable president, a worldwide oil market in freefall, and steadily increasing animosity between the United States and China... actually, increasing animosity between the United States and almost every other major nation.
Then, of course, there are always the real unknowns: for instance, a vice-president who has just announced that the White House, as the death toll passes 70,000, is looking to wind down the pandemic taskforce.
It may be arguable to classify the White House as an unknown: it should be generally expected that they will pursue the most self-serving, ignorant or stupid option available in any situation requiring experience, intelligence or leadership.
The odds of accurate market prediction for the foreseeable future are significantly worse than those of your typical slot machine. Good luck on that.

M* analysis dated March 30, 2020: "Despite its burgeoning asset base of over $19 billion as of December 2019, the portfolio’s characteristics have not strayed. The fund closed to new investors at $9 billion in assets in May 2010, so it’s unlikely to reopen anytime soon."
I count $13B from four share classes as of Dec 2019 from the Annual Report ($9B in TRMCX, $3B in TRMIX, and a couple of classes with small amounts). So I'm not sure how accurate the $19B figure is. According to M*, the fund is now back down to $9.8B.
So it's curious that M* wrote just one month ago that the fund was unlikely to open soon.

Listen to your elders. Especially, those who have been there and done that; and are clear thinkers.
Interview
Take care,
Catch

Sold a few odds and ends I picked up in March after locking in some short-term cap gains that more than cover upwards of 1-2+ years of dividends.
I originally planned those purchases to be long-term holds but I'm having second thoughts about that @ the moment and moving to control exposures/risk.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1012678/000174177320000799/c497.htm
497 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2020
Effective June 5, 2020, the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund will resume accepting new accounts and purchases from most investors who invest directly with T. Rowe Price.
Accordingly, effective June 5, 2020, the first sentence under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in Section 1, and the first four paragraphs under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” in Section 3, are deleted in their entirety from the prospectus.
Financial intermediaries and other institutional clients should contact T. Rowe Price Financial Institution Services or their relationship manager to determine eligibility to open new accounts and purchase shares of the fund.
The date of this supplement is May 5, 2020.
F115-041 5/5/20

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-trap-awaiting-the-stock-market-ahead-of-a-grim-summer-warns-nomura-strategist-2020-05-05
"This is the trap awaiting the stock market ahead of a grim summer, warns Nomura strategist
Sell in pandemic May and go away?
That is a fair question, as a six-month period that has traditionally been unfavorable for stocks gets under way, with painful coronavirus baggage piled on top."
I think they had similar discussions in late Sept 2009/Early 2010, lots Grims/dims and double dip, turned out be scare tatic
Different Reaction this time around? Only time will tell. IMHO, stocks so cheap now and nothing else looks more attractive.
Or we did indeed have an April Fool Rally [We will know @ 4p Central time 8/31/2020 ]

Sold all his airline holdings.
According to this article, those holdings were worth 4 billion dollars in the not so distant past.

https://247wallst.com/investing/2020/05/02/why-sell-in-may-looks-so-alluring-in-2020/
/Why 'Sell in May' Looks So Alluring in 2020
Jon C. Ogg
May 2, 2020 6:31 am
Last Updated: May 2, 2020 8:51 am
Every year, there is a recurring mantra of “Sell in May and go away!” This is the belief that investors should exit the stock market ahead of summer and not return until the fall. After the bear market panic ended in March, April’s stock market gains were the strongest one-month performance in more than 30 years. Even if investors choose to hold on to all of their stocks, it is important to consider why “Sell in May” matters./
Market may not response similarly compared to previous May's in 2018 2019

I noted in an email on Friday that I didn't want to launch our anniversary issue at 10:00 on a Friday note, so we targeted "just after brunch" on Sunday.
Okay, so my hypothetical brunch ran long. (sigh)
My letter, sharing the case for rational optimism and the need for immediate caution.
Profile of the Bruce Fund, Launch Alerts for Matthews Asia Emerging Markets and Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts, Elevator Talk with Eric Cinnamond and Jayme Wiggin of Palm Valley Capital Fund.
Ed offers him most direct portfolio advice to date, Lynn helps you work through taxes, Charles unveils new ways of figuring out what's in your bond fund.
And all of them answer the question, what are you thinking?, in a series of short essays each entitled "What I'm Thinking."
I hope it was worth the wait.
David

I'll trust the author's method of calculation. I do not disagree with his conclusions.
NYT article
SNIPPET:
Here are the annualized returns:
The S&P 500: 5.4 percent.
Long Treasury bonds (with a duration of at least 10 years): 8.3 percent.
Long investment-grade corporate bonds: 7.7 percent.
Junk bonds: 6.5 percent.
Broad investment-grade bond index (the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond index): 5.2 percent.
Take care,
Catch

I've got several AF's spread across my accounts and am pleased with their slow-and-steady approach.
That said (and I'm not a FI person) are these the right market conditions to launch a FI product, let alone one that would be worthy of Capital's conservative approach to investing?