@MJG & Roy - Gentlemen, I couldn't agree more. For years and years I chased around reading all the pundits/guru's/hot hands writings and recommendations trying to diversify and be in the right place at the right time when all I really had to do was select a handful of decent options at the start and then keep my hands off. Infinitely more financially rewarding with the bonus of plenty of time for other stuff like a life.

10 years ago I decided to simplify, for several reasons, by moving our investments from a handful of mutual fund companies and 10 mutual funds to 1 mutual fund company and largely 1 fund, a moderate allocation fund (PRWCX). Very simple and easy to manage.
After about six years I found myself thinking that maybe it would be wise to be better diversified than basically being all-in on one fund, so I transferred all our investments to an online brokerage account to gain easier access to other fund families and funds.
Today, I find myself slowly moving an increased percentage of assets back towards PRWCX as finding other MA funds or a combination of other funds to form a MA that comes anywhere near the performance of this singular, diversified fund difficult...including combinations of index funds.
Our online brokerage account rep is trying to convince me to hand over at least a portion of our portfolio to him which would be invested in ETF's...and many of them. Past performance of these ETF portfolios with similar equity/bond ratio does not warrant it. Also, I can't help but feel that it would be just as good to be invested in a couple index funds rather than an array of 18 or more ETF's...only justification for that many funds seems to be to justify their management fees!

@varmint &MFO Members: Varmint is correct that time is on you side, and VWAHX has a excellent long-term record. VWAHX is ranked #3 in the Muni High-Yield Bond Fund category by U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-national-interm/vanguard-high-yield-tax-exempt-fund/vwahx

That's a ranking of investment grade bonds, not high yield bonds.
This just goes to show that over the long term, if one rides out the ups and downs, junk bonds seem to do marginally better than investment grade bonds, commensurate with their higher risk.
VWAHX, with its lower risk than typical junk, would be expected to return less over the long term than typical junk bonds. Yet it did outperform the HY average over 15 years. That is because of its 2008/2009 performance (and because of its much lower expenses). Like other investment grade bonds, it fared much better in 2008 than junk. So much so that its underperformance in 2009 (relative to junk) didn't wipe out this sizeable one-time advantage.
But some good, inexpensive junk bond funds still outperformed cumulatively, even going back past 2008. BCHYX outperformed VWAHX over every time frame (though not on an individual year basis) - YTD, 1 week, 1 mo, 3 mo, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 years. (Go to this M* page, and input BCHYX to compare.)
VWAHX straddles junk and investment grade. That's why it makes such a good entry into junk. M* calls it "conservative, and so much so, that it places in the muni-national intermediate-term category". Comparing it with either junk or investment grade, without adjusting for its distinctive mix of quality grades, can lead to wrong inferences.

I have held Vanguard Hi Yield Municipal Bond Fund for about 20 years, through ups an downs, very happy, no plans to mess with it. You get the rock bottom expenses and don't have to worry about it blowing up because a manager decided to make a big bet on a security or the market and messed up. I hold funds for long periods of time, don't hold that many, have a large dollar portfolio. Time is on your side in the market and I have the returns to prove it.

The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the

NHMAX also has a 4% front load!

Did I read you right, that you want to use muni bonds in IRAs? Some custodians won't even allow this. For example, Fidelity does, but not online:
"The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. "
That said, given your last comment ("MUB might be the way for lowest risk"), I would also ask what you are looking for in terms of risk/reward. If you're even comparing MUB with junk bond funds, then it may be that you're not comfortable enough with junk. I find that over the long term the volatility doesn't matter (to me), but each person has his own comfort levels and objectives.
Bonds (and bond funds) are at one level pretty simple vehicles. As quality goes down, risk and reward go up. (If one wants to minimize this type of risk, one can stick with investment grade funds). As duration goes up, risk and reward go up.
Quality and duration, along with cost, are the three main levers. These levers determine the vast majority of a vanilla fund's performance. You pick the risk level and source of risk you want and then go fund a low cost fund matching that. Sure issue selection matters, especially with junk, but broad diversification can paper over a lot of problems there.
To make things interesting, let me toss in another fund - one that isn't classified as high yield - BCHYX. It's a single state junk bond fund. But given that the state's California, (with an economy approaching the size of the UK's), you still get a fair amount of diversification. Also, the fund fits midway between your two other funds.
The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the middle. DVHIX with its shorter duration (6 years) tends to give a smoother and more muted performance. All of these are still much longer than MUB's 4.7 years, if you're focused on minimizing interest rate risk.
I have a hard time with bond funds, especially munis, that have ERs over 0.50%. High ER and long duration would be my concerns with NHMAX. For an index fund, one hopes to do better on cost, but HYMB barely beats this target with 0.45% ER. Nevertheless it gets you higher quality bonds (BBB), albeit still with a somewhat long duration (8.2 years).
HYD does better on cost (0.35%), but still at the longer end of duration (8.7 years), and appears to have the lowest quality portfolio (eyeballing its fact sheet).
If you really want junk and also want to dial down risk, look for funds with BB or better credit and shorter durations. The obvious choice if you want to have a "high yield" muni fund with training wheels (that's not a pejorative, just a colorful description) is VWAHX/VWALX.

Hi Guys,
Comparing women’s skills and contributions against men’s skills and contributions in any competitive industry is always entering controversial and dangerous waters.
Simple explanations are easy, but are often wrong. Complex explanations likely improve the odds of a meaningful answer. On the top of that decision pyramid, informed simple solutions are most likely to provide the best odds and the why insights. Here is my attempt at an informed simple explanation.
Women are an underrepresented population in the financial advisory industry because of 3 interactive reasons: (1) they lacked motivation and opportunity in the past, (2) they lacked the requisite education, and (3) industry adjustment time lags.
This is an informed simple explanation based on a single set of curves that summarized women’s education participation and levels over the last 5 decades. Here is the Link to the data sets that I referenced:
http://www.russellsage.org/blog/rise-women-seven-charts-showing-womens-rapid-gains-educational-achievement
These data sets are quite revealing. Young women have historically done better in High School than young men. Yet, those with advanced degrees, that would make them attractive to the finance advisory industries, have only arrived in sufficient numbers in the last several decades.
The financial industries are tradition bound. They make tons of money with little capital investment, and are reluctant to change this profitable equation. But it is changing slowly, ever so slowly, as more and more women are entering the business, are demonstrating their dedication and skill sets, and are moving up the corporate ladders. Inertia is a powerful drag. It just takes time.
Today, women only compose roughly 10% of the financial wizards in the USA; in some European countries, that percentage approaches 20%. In 2 decades, I predict those percentages will increase to 50% worldwide. I don’t fear long range predictions because nobody worries, nobody cares, and nobody remembers anyway.
As an aside, I was not surprised that girls outscore boys at the High School level. That’s been a truism forever. But I was surprised by the increase in overall grades over the last 50 years. Are we getting smarter? My answer to that question is a sharp “No”. The timeframe is too short. My answer is that the grading system has become softer. That’s not an especially good motivator; a more demanding score keeper will provide stronger incentives.
What do you think? Your comments are encouraged.
Best Wishes.

Sometimes I think some high profile managers say things to draw attention to themselves to keep them in the spotlight. Is Bill Gross even relevant anymore?? We have been hearing for more than a few years now how low returns going forward will be the norm. That high profile manager from GMO (among others) was saying that back in 2010. As for the present, seems like small and mid cap biotech has been having a stealth rally. Maybe those closer to that area can confirm. SUPN anyone?

"Didn't gold basically go down about 75% from roughly 1980 to 2001?"
Peaked at $850 in 1980. Slid to around $350 in 1993. In dollar terms (non-inflation adjusted) that's a loss of around 60%. As rjb says, the inflation adjusted loss was much greater.
I bought a little just before the 80s peak and attempted to buy down on the frequent dips for three or four years after. A terrific first lesson in investing. One I won't forget.

FYI: The difference between short- and long-term yields in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market is the smallest in more than eight years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/muni-bond-yield-curve-flattest-since-2008-credit-crisis-chart

Nine days? LOL.
I watched it go down for nine years one time.

Didn't gold basically go down about 75% from roughly 1980 to 2001?
On an after inflation basis, I think it went down roughly 90% during that time.

Slowlane You are doing great and beating my 6%+ YTD. You should clarify that your 7.5% is your portfolio return YTD as you only trade bonds. I am still real wary of corp junk. It is still about oil in that sector. If we head back down will roll over my JYIIX into JFIIX. IVHIX has a high % in bank loans and why I like it in the corp junk category. Bank loans have been as smooth a ride as you and I have had the past many years. Bring on the higher rates!

Nine days? LOL.
I watched it go down for nine years one time.

@Junkster - I'm no Bill Gross, but I'm up 7.5% YTD in my bond only portfolio, which has been almost all in bank loan funds for the past 2 months. I have 80% in bank loans funds, LSFYX, JFIIX and SAMBX and 20% in DVHIX, a municipal high yield fund. The bank loan funds have been less volatile than corp HY, but corp junk may be catching its second wind here. IVHIX looks good and it is finally coming back after Bryan Krug's departure a couple of years ago.

Speaking of asset manager commercials, I still remember this one the most:

Don't know if it actually brought in more business, but its been 40 years and I recall it clear as a bell.

Hi Guys,
In the referenced article, The Economist reports that the tide has finally turned in terms of active fund management. Active fund management is losing market share. It’s about time! It has been statistically established that professional money managers have been swimming naked for a long time.
Yes there are a few rare exceptions, but the bulk of the money management community have indeed generated excessive royal rewards for themselves, but not much for their customers, either individually or institutionally. It is common knowledge that passive Index investing has left these experts high and dry on the beach of under-delivered promises.
These experts promise excess returns (Alpha) over benchmarks and do not produce. In any given year 50% to 70% do not match their benchmarks; when the measurement timeframe expands to multiple years that underperformance increases to the 80% to 90% level. That’s true even in the Emerging markets sector where these guys are supposedly at an advantage. That’s a sad record.
It’s not that these experts have not had an opportunity to display their talents. Aggressive active investment organizations that were established to specifically service institutions (like company retirement funds) were assembled in the 1960s. According to some industry historians, these newly formed firms were motivated by the success of the Dreyfus Lion prowling out of the New York subway exit. Dreyfus was attracting tons of money.
In those days, individual investors did 90% of the trading activity; today, a few giant money management firms do 90% of that trading. At a minimum, these experts interact to cancel any of each other’s perceived investment insights and/or tactics. In fact, any such insights are more than neutralized by their operational cost drags.
Most money managers fail to satisfy their extravagant promises by not meeting their benchmark goals. Integrating globally, the active money managers who are on the negative side of the measurement criteria lose more on a percentage basis than those on the positive side of that balance sheet that incrementally gain against that same criteria. Now that’s a practical Loser’s game!!
So after these many decades, even the investing institutions, the preferred customers in terms of profit potential, are slowly learning the lesson that many private investors learned much earlier. The California pension fund, CALPERS, has finally reduced the number and the resource commitments to active fund managers. The shortfalls of active fund management has ultimately prompted even these moribund sleeping institutional giants into some action.
Good for them, good for their clients, not so good for the professional money managers. Their services do warrant some payoff, but their investment decisions have been a disaster. They have earned a pay-cut, and that’s now happening. We do learn, although far too slowly.
Best Wishes.

BSBSX might be another one to consider.
@ep1 Here's a "play sheet". Have fun with the compare and contrast, as you click on the tabs for various investment intervals:
https://www.fidelity.com/fund-screener/compare.shtml#!&fIds=BSBSX,PRWBX,DLSNX,VFSTX
We have revisited this topic about every 6 months for the past 2 years, and nothing much in our collective assessment has moved, as far as I can tell. If safety is your #1 priority, then @hank has suggested a good one that hasn't come up much in prior discussions, viz. PRWBX. Rock-solid during the financial crisis. With respect to DLSNX, I think msf has it measured correctly; if dvd yield is your goal, you really have to ask yourself if the additional credit risk Baruch is taking on to get you a very slight increase in yield is worth it. Probably not. However, if you are planning to use DLSNX as a "holding pen" for money you eventually intend to shuttle to other DoubleLine funds (which is how I've looked at it, as a possible investment), at a more optimal time, then perhaps it isn't too shabby an option.
On the other hand, just because things don't appear to have moved much does not mean things under the covers are not moving. If you're disappointed with current distribution yields (who isn't?), look critically at current allocations. Many ST bond funds have been holding their payouts steady while at the same time increasing their cash holdings, suggesting they are sensing a turning point ahead. If this proves to be correct, then you might benefit more in the near future by being in a fund that has an elevated cash position but may now be yielding slightly less than others.
But I can't help thinking, every time this topic comes up for review, what a sorry state of affairs we're in, when we are reduced to scrutinizing how best to polish our pennies, as a significant mental exercise. :)

Update:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1013881/000119312516605102/d160984d497.htm
497 1 d160984d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST
NUVEEN TRADEWINDS VALUE OPPORTUNITIES FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 27, 2016
TO THE PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED OCTOBER 30, 2015
NUVEEN TRADEWINDS GLOBAL ALL-CAP FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 27, 2016
TO THE PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2015
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Nuveen Investment Trust (“NIT”) and Nuveen Investment Trust II (“NIT II”) has approved several matters related to Nuveen Tradewinds Value Opportunities Fund (“Value Opportunities Fund”), a series of NIT, and Nuveen Tradewinds Global All-Cap Fund (“Global All-Cap Fund”), a series of NIT II. Both Funds are managed by Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (“NFAL”) and sub-advised by Tradewinds Global Investors, LLC (“Tradewinds”). These approvals were made in connection with an internal reorganization of certain investment personnel and fund management responsibilities from Tradewinds to NWQ Investment Management Company, LLC (“NWQ”) and the anticipated orderly wind down of Tradewinds. NFAL, Tradewinds and NWQ are subsidiaries of Nuveen Investments, Inc.
Fund Reorganizations. The Board has approved the reorganizations of Value Opportunities Fund and Global All-Cap Fund (each an “Acquired Fund” and together the “Acquired Funds”) into Nuveen NWQ Global Equity Income Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of NIT which is advised by NFAL and sub-advised by NWQ. In order for the reorganization to occur for an Acquired Fund, it must be approved by the shareholders of that Fund. There is no requirement that shareholders of each Acquired Fund approve the reorganization. Therefore, it is possible that the reorganization could occur between the Acquiring Fund and only one of the Acquired Funds.
For each Acquired Fund, if the Acquired Fund’s shareholders approve the reorganization, the Acquired Fund will transfer all of its assets and liabilities to the Acquiring Fund in exchange for Acquiring Fund shares of equal value. These Acquiring Fund shares will then be distributed to Acquired Fund shareholders and the Acquired Fund will be terminated. As a result of these transactions, Acquired Fund shareholders will become shareholders of the Acquiring Fund and will cease to be shareholders of the Acquired Fund. Each Acquired Fund shareholder will receive Acquiring Fund shares with a total value equal to the total value of that shareholder’s Acquired Fund shares immediately prior to the closing of the reorganization.
A joint special meeting of the shareholders of the Acquired Funds for the purpose of voting on each Fund’s respective reorganization is expected to be held in October 2016. If the required approval is obtained, it is anticipated that the reorganization will be consummated shortly after the special shareholder meeting. Further information regarding the proposed reorganizations will be contained in proxy materials that are expected to be sent to shareholders of the Acquired Funds in late August 2016.
Each Acquired Fund will continue sales and redemptions of its shares as described in the prospectus until shortly before its reorganization. However, holders of shares purchased after the record date set for the special meeting of shareholders will not be entitled to vote those shares at the special meeting.
Investment Policy Change. Contingent on shareholder approval of the reorganization of the Value Opportunities Fund, the Board also approved the removal of the Fund’s primary investment strategy to invest not more than 35% of its net assets in non-U.S. equity securities. If shareholders approve the reorganization, the Fund may invest in non-U.S. equity securities without limit. If shareholders do not approve the reorganization, the 35% limitation on non-U.S. equity securities will remain in place. In either case, the Fund will not invest more than 15% of its net assets in equity securities of companies located in emerging market countries.
Interim Sub-Advisory Agreements. In connection with the planned wind down of Tradewinds, the Board also approved the termination of the sub-advisory agreements between NFAL and Tradewinds for Value Opportunities Fund and Global All-Cap Fund, effective August 1, 2016, and approved interim sub-advisory agreements between NFAL and NWQ for each Fund that will go into effect on the same date. The terms of each Fund’s interim sub-advisory agreement between NFAL and NWQ will be identical to the terms of the Fund’s current sub-advisory agreement between NFAL and Tradewinds, except that each interim sub-advisory agreement will terminate on the earlier of (i) 150 days after its effective date or (ii) the date the reorganization for the respective Fund is consummated.
Although the names of the Funds will not change after effectiveness of the interim sub-advisory agreements, Tradewinds will no longer have any involvement with the management of the Funds. As of August 1, 2016, Value Opportunities Fund and Global All-Cap Fund will no longer be managed by their current portfolio managers and each Fund will be managed by the following individuals:
•James T. Stephenson, CFA, is a Managing Director, Portfolio Manager and Equity Analyst at NWQ. Prior to joining NWQ in 2006, Mr. Stephenson spent seven years at Bel Air Investment Advisors, LLC, a State Street Global Advisors Company, where he was a Managing Director and Partner. Most recently, Mr. Stephenson was Chairman of the firm’s Equity Policy Committee and the Portfolio Manager for Bel Air’s Large Cap Core and Select strategies. Previous to this, he spent five years as an Analyst and Portfolio Manager at ARCO Investment Management Company. Prior to that, he was an Equity Analyst at Trust Company of the West.
• Thomas J. Ray, CFA, is Managing Director, Head of Fixed Income and Portfolio Manager at NWQ. Prior to joining NWQ in 2015, he served as Chief Investment Officer, President and founding member of Inflective Asset Management (“Inflective”), a boutique investment firm specializing in convertible securities, from 2001 until 2011. From 2011 until joining NWQ in 2015, Mr. Ray was a private investor. Prior to founding Inflective, Mr. Ray served as portfolio manager at Transamerica Investment Management.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR FUND’S PROSPECTUS
AND/OR SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

I was able to accumulate 3-4 years of bucket 1 expense dollars split between a taxable account and an IRA, allocated to these funds:
Taxable: VWITX
IRA: ZEOIX, PIFZX, SSTHX, SUBFX
Anything above ~2% is a win.

Agree 100% with msf.
Why hold cash if you're than willing to expose it to even a modicum of risk? Would seem to defeat the purpose. Take your risk through other parts of your portfolio.
I hold very little cash per se. What little is held I tend to view as "dead-wood" and don't expect any growth from it due to the very low risk-free rates available today. Similar to msf's use of short munis, I'm willing to stretch my definition of cash just a hair by using Price's ultra short TRBUX. It might net an extra half-percent or so per year over money market funds, and I can tolerate an occassional penny or so deviation from its $5 NAV. But you need to be careful with ultra-shorts. Not all are equal in terms of safety/stability. Some experienced large losses in '08. I've been with Price about 25 years and have found them very cautious in managing these types of conservative investments.
Another thought: As a senior investor with limited appetite for risk I lean heavily toward balanced and hybrid funds that contain cash or cash-like holdings. These managers have a better read on the short term money markets than you and I do, and because they invest in large quantity can obtain a slightly higher return on the cash they do hold. Some houses actually maintain separate institutional cash/short-term income funds for this purpose. A couple hybrids I've used are TRRIX and TRRFX - both very risk-adverse funds.
If you're looking for something slightly more adventurous than cash, you might take a look at Price's PRWBX. It's a solid short term bond fund with a long history that should protect/grow your principal over time - but which is subject to the occasional down-year.