Should I move my money market funds into bonds?
It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk. One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market. If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider  moving them into an online saving account.  You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible.  Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks).   If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be.  Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio.   It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments.  If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate.  Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value. How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you  might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to  your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss.  On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up.  Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide. "Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund.  The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are ""paying"" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble." There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999).  Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation.  Now the real question is value or growth.......
Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings.  Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough. In your case, you could very well leave it in something like FFFFX, which for readers is a self balancing fund with a target retirement date of 2040.  These funds are a conglomeration of other funds that tend to move more conservatively as time passes. However, I like to put no more than 10% of my portfolio in one fund with exceptions made for balances less than 20K.   So If I had 18K it really wouldn't matter if it was in FUSEX a S&P 500 index fund.  However by investing in FFFFX you pretty much meet that requirement.    So you are golden if that fund meets your goals.  For me, I kind of hate bonds and despite being of similar age, I have almost no money invested in bonds. "If by ""putting money in the bank"" you mean regular savings or checking, then the bond locks a rate for a period of time, whereas your savings/checking rate can vary over that period.  That variation might go for you or against you.  Depending on your situation, you might prefer to take a determined rate to the variations.  In addition, some bond types provide tax benefits (e.g. treasuries and municipal bonds) that change the effective return - You cannot just compare the interest rates. Finally, the bonds have ""resale"" value on the secondary market like stock - Depending on your outlook and strategy, you might by the bond for its value as a security rather than for the interest specifically just like you'd could buy a dividend-paying stock for its value as a security rather than for the dividend.  In other words, you might think that bond values are going up, so you buy bonds with the intent of making a capital gain rather than counting on the interest returned. (The bond market does depend on the interest rate, so these are not independent factors.) I see the other answer that mentions the potential for your bank busting and you losing money beyond the FDIC insurance limit.  The question doesn't specify U.S. Government bonds though, so I don't think that answer is generally good.  It would be good in the case that you had a lot of money (especially an institution or foreign government) and you were specifically interested in U.S. Treasury bonds.  Not so much if you invest in corporate bonds where you have no government insurance / assurance of any sort.  Municipal bounds are also not backed by the U.S. (federal) government, but they may have some backing at the state level, depending on the state." "How should I allocate short-term assets in a rising-interest rate   environment? Assuming that the last part is correct, there could be bear bond funds that short bonds that could work well as a way to invest. However, bear in that the the ""rising-interest rate environment"" is part of the basis that may or may not be true in the end as I'm not sure I've seen anything to tell me why rates couldn't stay where they are for another couple of years or more. Long-Term Capital Management would be a cautionary tale before about bonds that had assumptions that backfired when something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened. Thus, while you can say there is ""rising-interest rate environment"" what else are you prepared to assume and how certain are you of that happening? An alternate theory here would be that ""junk bonds"" may do well because the economy has to be heating up for rates to rise and thus the bonds that are priced down so much because of default risk may turn out to not go bust and thus could do well. Course this would carry the ""Your mileage may vary"" and without a working time machine I couldn't say which funds will be good and which would suck. As for what I would do if I was dealing with my own money: Money market funds and CDs would likely be my suggestion for the short-term where I want to prevent principal risk. This is likely what I would do if I believed the rising rate environment is here." It looks like an improvement to me, if for no other reason than lowering the expenses. But if you are around 35 years away from retirement you could consider eliminating all bond funds for now. They will pay better in a few years. And the stock market(s) will definitely go up more than bonds over the next 35 years. "Possible but very unlikely. Money market funds invest in high grade liquid assets and the primary goal is not to lose money. I have not been able to find an example of a Vanguard money market fund ever ""breaking the buck"" and having the value of a share go below a dollar. It is possible that this could happen in the event of a large scale financial collapse, but even then I would call it possible rather than likely." I would disagree with your analysis.  To me there are two purposes for a money market (MM): Your emergency fund should be from 3 to 6 months of expenses.  Think of it of an insurance policy against Murphy.  You may want to have some money designated for big expenses, or even sinking funds.  For example, I keep some money in a MM for a car as both the wife, daughter, and I driver older vehicles.  I may need to replace them. If you were planning on making a larger purchase car, house, boat, engagement ring I would put the money in a MM fund so you are not subject to the whims of the market.   After that you are free to invest all your money.  Its likely that you should have some money outside of tax advantaged funds so if you want to start a business you will not have to do high cost withdrawals. Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading.  Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%.  This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high.  In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it.  Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities.  If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF.  Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering. The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I   keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year?  Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this?  In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of   the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low. edit: nevermind.  i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds.    For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates.    For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks.  So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper. As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait. I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return.  In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost. "1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the ""term"" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy ""bonds"" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the ""average duration"" or ""average maturity"" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of ""complicated"" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also ""floating rate"" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:" A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund.     Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund.   The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks. Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.