[QUOTE=Lunar Saltlick]
I don’t think you really want advice from a message board. You sound as though you’re already pretty savvy about investments, tax rates, etc., and you’re talking about serious change here. Don’t you have anyone more professional than us who can help you out? I’m assuming (maybe incorrectly) that your chunk of change is coming from someone who had some smarts. Maybe their advisor/broker/banker can help?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’m pretty informed about investing and have managed my own portfolio since firing my last financial planner 10 years ago. I’m not asking for advice as to what to do with the money. I’m looking for ideas anyone may have (that I haven’t thought of) as to how I can get a “better” principal-risk-free return than what I have already found. (Please see the OP for what I mean by “principal-risk-free”.)
J.
[QUOTE=China Guy]
Christ on a pogo stick. Risk free, by definition, means US Treasuries and nothing fucking else on the planet. Any interest rate greater than the bench mark US treasuries means that risk goes up. Ask anyone holding some of that sub prime triple A rated radioactive shit.
You may, at slightly greater risk, be able to invest in CA bonds that reduce your tax exposure. But again, this is at greater risk.
Sheeple, one last time, if it pays interest than a US treasury, it ain’t risk free. Learn this at your own peril.
MyToeHurts: do you have any kind of a cite that shows a US treasury not being paid off?
[/QUOTE]
No, but I have plenty of municipals etc. Also confederate cotton bonds 
You might also be interested in this. Good timing, eh!
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not writing naked ITM calls on treasuries, nor am I saying that they are a risky instrument. I’m just stating what ought to be obvious: they are not risk free.
Think outside the box and don’t believe everything you read.
[QUOTE=Plynck]
Saying that the US may not be here 1000 years from now, and then interpreting that to mean that any investment in US securities has “at a conservative estimate, something over a chance of one in a thousand of becoming practically worthless in any one year” may make sense to a statistician, but not to me.
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point. But a government can collapse in the blink of an eye. It is only in retrospect that the warning signs become clear.