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.

In the taxable arena, I have a hard time justifying the added risk of any bond fund over the safety of an FDIC-insured bank account. One might eek out a quarter percent or so additional return, but at a cost of volatility along with interest rate and credit risks.
Right now, it's easy to get 1%+ from banks. (I'm looking at straight savings accounts here, not "rewards" checking accounts that limit the size of the account, require you to make a dozen debit card purchases a month, mortgage your first born child ....)
DLSNX has missed the 1% threshold over the past year, and has not quite made 1.25% over the past three years. It may look like it's managing interest rate risk (low effective duration), but it is heavily invested in mortgages, which tend to have negative convexity (meaning that prices will drop faster than duration would suggest). And it is at the low end of credit quality.
I'm not knocking that fund in particular - any fund that gives returns much in excess of bank accounts now is taking risks somewhere or other. Maybe the risks are manageable, maybe not. That's why for taxable yield I'm sticking with banks for now.
Munis are another matter. There, I think that by going out slightly in duration, one can get respectable returns with what for me is acceptable risk. VMLTX, BTMIX (Baird portfolio stats here), MSINX, etc. SEC yields about 0.9% or better, higher credit quality. While the duration tends to be around 2.5 years, I expect less interest rate movement in the muni market. Rates are lower (because interest is tax-exempt) so the same percentage shift in rates means a smaller change in magnitude than for taxable bonds.
Banks yielding over 1% include Ally (1.0%), Synchrony (1.05% - formerly GE Capital Retail Bank), Goldman Sachs (1.05% - formerly GE Capital Bank, a different bank).

@Ted: I had originally purchased PRHSX back in early 2013, but when they had a change in managers, I decided to sell it. Probably should have kept it, as it is now closed, but took PHSZX instead, which has done well, but its a bit more volatile. As I have stated before, I also have FBTIX (advisor equivalent of FBIOX) and PJP for pure large pharma. Adding IHI was a momentum play, and we will see how it turns out. I am still overweight healthcare, as all of my equities are in iras, with 5+ years until i have to start rmd. This is balanced by largest positions in VIG, VDIGX, PKW and SMGIX all diversified funds.

@slick: PRHSX PRHSX PRHSX PRHSX, if and when it reopens to new investors, get my drift ! The Fund is ranked #1 By U.S. News & World Report. I've owned this fund for over ten years.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/health/t.-rowe-price-health-sciences-fund/prhsx
M*: PRHSX Performance:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PRHSX&region=usa&culture=en_US

I have been overweight in healthcare for over three years, rewarded handsomely until a year ago. Decided to add a medical device component, which has been doing pretty well. Already had biotech FBTIX, health care fund PHSZX and Large Pharma etf PFP. Looked at Fidelity's Select FSMEX, but 25% of the holdings were in one stock Medtronic. Decided to buy IHI, which had considerably less exposure to MDT ( I kept thinking about Sequoia's concentration).
Anyone else finding this area attractive? Not betting the farm, but willing to put my toe in with a modest allocation.

@MFO Members: At least this fund had a consistent poor performance record. YTD-15 Years 98 or 99 percentile. Therefore, there will be no wake or funeral service, the fund remains will be simply dumped into a land fill.
Reegards,
Ted

I personally like bond CEF's. They recover quicker than the S&P in hard market selloffs and they provide great yields if timed correctly. I own DSL bought during the oil scare in 1Q16. I do not buy new CEF's. Most trade down over the first 2-3 years. See much heralded PCI. I also like CEF's that show a tendency to move to premiums from time to time. Buy good management and you don't get hit as hard with defaults. I believe in averaging down on CEF's when purchasing them. Many believe junk bond CEF's trade on interest rates but they are more closely related to the stock market. Historical relative valuation analysis is necessary when buying them IMHO. I only buy them with wide discounts in sell offs.

You got me poking around on the topic of average...
"In 1971, Batterymarch Financial Management of Boston independently decided to pursue the idea of index investing. The developers were Jeremy Grantham and Dean LeBaron, two of the founders of the firm. Grantham described the idea at a Harvard Business School seminar in 1971, but found no takers until 1973. For its efforts, Batterymarch won the prize for the "Dubious Achievement Award" from Pensions & Investments magazine in 1972.** It was two years later, in December 1974, when the firm finally attracted its first client.
By the time American National Bank in Chicago created a common trust fund modeled on the S&P 500 Index in 1974 (requiring a minimum investment of $100,000), the idea had begun to spread from academia—and these three firms that were the first professional believers—to a public forum."
The Indexing Story:
vanguard.com/bogle_site/lib/sp19970401.html
NAESX seems to be the oldest Mutual fund Index offered by Vanguard. Here's what 42 years of indexing (average returns looks like):

Hi @Junkster,
Thanks for your comment.
In looking at SAMBX and EVFAX they have both offered good recent upside and better returns than my current bank loan fund GIFAX. And, as a trader I can understand why you selected them. But, over the past five years it appears GIFAX has provided a smoother ride with a little better overall return than SAMBX and EVFAX. The Lommis Sayles fund (LSFAX) the A share version of LSFYX is one I looked at at the time I bought GIFAX. It too looked to offer a more bumpy ride than GIFAX but it did provide a little better performance through the years. I went with GIFAX for the smoother ride.
The other two suggustions I'll have to take a closer look at JFIIX which I believe is buy eligable at my brokerage house but I am not so sure that HFRZX is. This is something I'll have to explore.
Thanks again for making comment.

With the upcoming anticipated rate increase(s) I have kept the duration towards the short end within my income sleeve along with maintaining a well diversified income selecton of mutual funds ranging from a high yield fund with a short duration, a bank loan fund, a couple limited term investment grade bond funds along with several strategic income funds. In addition, I am thinking of adding a mortgage backed securities fund (BMPAX) with a duration of 2.7 years along with a limited term duration muni income fund (LTEBX)) with a duration of 3.0 years. The current duration found in my fixed income sleeve is about 3.0 years. With this, I am looking to stay with good funds that have a short duration and maturity.
I do not have the investment depth and knowledge in the fixed income area of my portfolio that I have on the equity side. With this, I am wondering what other seasoned or accredited investors might be doing to better manage the income side of their portfolio. I can raise my allocation on the fixed income side by a couple of percent and still be towards it's low allocation range of about 25%.
According to a recent Xray analysis study my planned additions would result in an new overall asset allocaton of about 25% cash, 25% bonds, 45% equity and 5% other for the portfolio. This will leave me with enough cash to raise the equity allocation when I feel warranted while still holding an ample cash position to reestablish a CD ladder when interest rates reach a more attractive level.
I just do not want to walk into a rate increase storm and get hammered when I can still hold the cash now targeted to go towards adding these two new fixed income positions.
Any thoughts from others on fixed income funds that are anticipated to fair well during a rising interest rate environment would be appreciated?
Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.
Old_Skeet

Can't find any source where Icahn used the word "crash". Also, the market doesn't have to "crash" in order for him to make money on his position; it merely has to decline. And he has seemed to have chosen a reasonable point in the market's history at which to initiate such a position ( multiple years of gains and recent new highs, rich valuations by some measures, interest rate tightening cycle, etc. ) He just needs the economic growth data to slow a little more.
Icahn can basically say " you can invent all of the narrative ( the mainstream financial media ) that you want about my investment moves, I got the money ! "

Dex, you are comparing the charts of two open end funds where dividends accumulate daily and paid out end of month vs an ETF where dividends are handled differently and show as a decline on the charts end of month.

Dex?, OK I'll play. Dan,
I compared HYD with HYG. HYG is beating HYD YTD. But if you look at other time periods, 1, 2, 5 - HYD wins. HYG is slightly ahead in 10 years by 1.75 pct pts. Max HYG is better by less than 9 pct pts.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HYD+Interactive#{"range":"ytd","allowChartStacking":true}

Good Day to You,
When I was seventeen, it was a very good year.....or so the lyric goes.
Well, 17 was a long time ago for this one. Now to begin to leave one of my active lovers.
If one is of the mind, passion and spirit for investing; the rewards, satisfaction and a form of love may leave a smile upon the face. While 50 ways (reasons) are not needed to leave an investing lover, one will likely determine a few key personal points.
Needless to say, the group here are not one's normal invest monies in a 401k, 403b, 457 or some form of IRA just to build a retirement account. We here tend to "fiddle" with whatever is available to our accounts.
Understanding/knowing the difference between being a passive or active investor is of value; as long as one also understands that he/she is likely active in managing choices which fall into a passive investment vehicle.
The exceptions that come to mind are when one uses an advisor, be it human or robo. But, one has still made an active choice about this, too.
So........the plan for this house for a total portfolio:
---75% VWINX , 65% IG bonds, 35% U.S. stocks, active managed
---15% FSPHX , healthcare, active managed; also included, DPLO (Diplomat Pharma stock)
---10% FRIFX , a different real estate active managed fund with a history of 50/50 stocks/bonds
We have a percentage of all of these now, but will sell other holdings to accommodate the above numbers.
For those interested, the below links present more information (click on the other tabs at the top, aside from these composition links:
--- VWINX , composition
This fund has superior returns for many years. Yes, it is subject to the markets not unlike any other fund.
--- FSPHX , composition
We still remain tilted towards the health sector and the many sectors within health related. Although this sector has been getting the whack during the past 6 or so months; our holdings average total return for the past several years remain most decent.
--- FRIFX , composition
You won't find an easy method for ranking in a category list for real estate, as this fund doesn't fit the normal holdings positions for this category, being about 50% bonds. As normal, we look for total return over a time frame; versus which fund is having the most fun, say, within a 1 or 2 year period.
--- DPLO , A specialty pharmacy. This company IPO'd in October of 2014. We purchased near the IPO price, having been very familiar with the quality of the organization during its 25 years of being private. We continue to hold this stock.
https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/goto/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=DPLO&type=o-NavBar
As we investors are always subject (or should be subject to change) to change, the following holdings will be liquidated; market conditions allowing (no black swans, etc. allowed), from some accounts outside of Fidelity.
---BRUIX , DPRRX , BAGIX , DGCIX , OPBYX , VIIIX , GPROX , PRHSX , HEDJ , FHLC , ITOT
NOTE: all monies are tax sheltered accounts without current tax implications
We'll arrive at a conservative/moderate balanced account holding. As with all individual investors, such mixes are subject to "the eyes of the beholder" function as to how the balance suits their needs and views. The investment mix is mostly biased towards U.S. markets and companies, although at this time; about 20% of the holdings relate to other than U.S. One would also expect these holdings to generate greater than 20% of earnings/yields from sources outside of the U.S. going forward and providing some international exposure by this method.
Lastly, a large core holding in VWINX may be reasonably argued to possibly cause harm to an overall portfolio going forward due to its large percentage holdings in IG bonds. The main argument being that IG bonds have had one heck of a run for much too long. One may suppose that the "odds" factor such an argument. I will note again the phrase "that this time is different" since the market melt of 2008. Of course it is, eh? We live in a most dynamic investing world. At the very least, central banks and related polices operate upon the egos of the members. Who in these groups would want to look bad in the eyes of financial history? I suspect the central banks will continue to surprise many making decisions based upon every available form of data mining to obtain desired outcomes. Our house is still "betting" upon the investment grade bonds. This is no less as scary as the equity markets discovering flaws in the system, not yet known. With VWINX as the example, an investor will reap 35% of the up or down of the given equity holdings and 65% of the up or down of the investment grade bond holdings for a "total" result.
Remain or become fully flexible and adaptable, not just to your perception of the investing marketplace; but more importantly, to and for yourself and those important in your life.
This "personal overview" is likely incomplete; but will suffice for the time being.
Comments welcomed.
Regards,
Catch

I think, what he means in "I am going for it ..." The door!
But, not me. I am staying with my asset allocation ranges. I'll have ample cash to raise my equity allocation from its low range of 45% towards its high range of 55% when I feel warranted. Besides if investors begin to run for the door when the market (S&P 500 Index) is only off its 52 week high by about 4% I wonder what they might do should there be a 10% pullback, or more. I'll be a buyer in equites somewhere around the 1920 range (S&P 500 Index) should we get there during the summer. I have been adjusting my allocation to equities over the past few years from a high range of 65%+ downward because I felt they were overvalued and somewhat overbought. Once, we get through the fall elections I am looking for a nice late fall stock market rally to develop. Anyway, this is how I am currently positioned and will ramp up my allocation in equities depending on how the investing landscape developes. I am thinking that third and fourth quarter corporate earnings will begin to improve and provide the needed fuel to support the rally. In addition, I am looking for the FOMC to raise interest rates to cool inflation as my rolling twelve month inflation number might surprise you with a reading of better than six percent from May 2015 through April 2016.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

I received an account statement from the new transfer agent (and one from the prior agent) reflecting the change over to Chartwell. I have not seen a link to access my accounts at the new agent (it was not listed on my statement either). I think I am going to liquidate both of my positions in Berwyn and Berwyn Income Funds very shortly.
I see my "no" vote on the reorganization did not matter much. I was hoping for more from the reorganization than two years of expenses frozen, i.e. possibly receiving "I" shares, and see no hope of closing the Berywn Income Fund in sight in order to generate more fee income for Chartwell.

The 2015 Annual Report gave an explanation for the deal as "a plan that aims to assist in [the funds'] continued growth and success, beyond [CEO Robert Killen's] retirement" - which will apparently be in 2018. Other than that paragraph in the report and subsequent proxy materials, communication with shareholders has been nearly nonexistent. The Berwyn Funds website made no reference to the acquisition; one day a Chartwell link showed up at the bottom of the page, and Chartwell showed up as the listed advisor. This month, I got transaction confirmations for the exchange of shares in the Berwyn Funds for shares in the (Chartwell) Berwyn Funds.
It's difficult to see what we get out of the deal other than a vague sense of a succession plan that had to go outside the fund advisor. Chartwell has agreed to waive fees above the ERs that Berwyn charged - until 2018. They have a different distributor and do not offer online access to our accounts. From what I can tell, what we gained was less service, the threat of higher expenses in a couple years, and new branding on our statements (which we can't get online).

Hi msf,
Thank you for your post. It is always a benefit to hear the case for a divergent opinion. In investing, like in most everything else, the rule rather than the exception is “Different Strokes for Different Folks”. To use another mundane and popular idiom, “We March to a Different Drummer”.
It would be an unlikely and a unique set of circumstances if we all agreed on investment decisions and financial advice. That’s not the way of a free and informed marketplace.
I am an amateur investor without any specific formal financial education except for college-level economics course work. When I started investing over 60 years ago, I knew next to nothing. The few things that I thought I knew were more wrong than right.
During my very early learning years, private financial advisers and powerhouse mutual fund heavy organizations like Fidelity introduced me to the ins-and-outs of the investment game in a fair and balanced way.
Sure the folks I was exposed to were aggressive, but they were also honest. Perhaps I was lucky; I suspect not. There are far more honest and trustworthy folks than frauds and cheaters. That’s true in all professional disciplines like engineering, construction work, doctoring, lawyering, and in the financial communities.
Yes, some bad apples exist and prosper for awhile, but not for very long. Justice happens; scoundrels go to jail. Today, the Information Age exposes them rapidly, and the charlatans and short-changers don’t survive.
I don’t want to seem especially Pollyanna in the investment arena. Some hucksters are always present and offering deals that are too good to be true. Caution and prudence must be exercised in all instances. A healthy skepticism and some fundamental research is a workable preventive cure with just a little effort.
I suspect that you and I agree on some of the points made by Jason Zweig in this article and on most of his viewpoints in his general writings. He does document his work with great care. By the way, I was aware of the advisor code’s existence, but am not familiar with its details.
Thanks again for agreeably presenting the other side of the equation to balance this discussion.
Best Wishes.

Few here will remember that this fund made a lot of money for investors in the early part of the new millennia (roughly 1999-2005). I enjoyed double digit returns during some of those years as oil slowly climbed towards the $100 range. I bought the Class A shares in 1997 shortly after Oppenheimer received approval from the SEC, seeking to diversify. It was an early forerunner in the commodities mutual fund area - possibly the first such fund.
Actually, the fund did not hold pork bellies, lumber or barrels of crude, but invested in the commodities futures markets using derrivitives which allowed most of the fund's assets to sit in T-Bills or cash, earning additional income. A black box? Yes - for certain. But something happened in roughly the 2003-2005 period when they temporarily closed (to all new money) what had been a successful fund. Investors received a letter stating that Oppenheimer had uncovered structural weaknesses in how the fund was being operated which might cause significant losses and that it would be restructured over the coming months to reduce these risks. (I'm relying here on best recollections.)
When the fund reopened to new money, it wasn't the same fund. It became a perineal looser. As Ted's article mentions, the fund was clobbered by the worst commodities bear market in recent history. But it wasn't managed well either and also carried close to a 2% ER on Class A shares.
I took a gamble in early 2015 and converted my entire holding with Oppenheimer (5-10% of assets) to Roth. All was in this fund. It was a calculated risk that the fund would bounce sharply. But it never did and dropped another 15-20%. What saved my skin, so to speak, was that in early September '15 I split that money 4-ways. 25% remained in QRAAX. 25% each went into OPGSX (gold), OREAX (Real Estate) and OEMAX (EM bonds). All three of the new funds experienced sharp rebounds after that point. The Roth is now back to break-even. Even QRAAX has had a pretty good year so far (up 6.6%).
As noted earlier, I have little money with these guys. Looks to me like the quality of many of their funds has fallen during the 2 decades since I purchased shares. Since it appeared they were planning on returning the $$ from the liquidation directly to investors rather than reinvesting it automatically (which would have tax repercussions), I moved the money myself to their Capital Income Fund (OPPEX) for the time being. This amounts to moving from one black box into another. However, the new black box appears better managed.
:)
Added note: Really appreciate the Shadow's heads-up on this pending fund liquidation. Nice to be informed early.

IMHO this is a lot to pay for convenience. These days, I'll buy what's cheapest, with convenience being secondary. How hard is it to purchase/sell via ACH? So that might mean buying directly from the fund or paying a TF to come out cheaper in the long run. The only time I buy NTF funds is when I like the fund and can live with the ER (and the fund can't be purchased more cheaply by buying direct).

Thanks for bring this to our attention. Unless there are real compelling reasons, I have gradually moved away from NTF funds in the past 10 years, and some are already high to begin with. For sure these discount brokerages want their piece of pie or two.

Over the years on M F O,these ideas and others have been mentioned in the ag/farm thesis,many by @scott
NASDAQ:CRESY
NASDAQ:LMNR
OTCMKTS:BWEL
NASDAQ:ALCO
Income issue ideas.
CHSCO
NASDAQ:CHSCP
Also fertilizer companies and seed genetics although with more volatility.
I own and reinvest dividends in LAND, FPACX, OTCRX
Millennials spending is accelerating, new demands for healthier foods and using e-commerce
Calavo Growers (CVGW) MasterCard (MA)
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Call_Presentation_1Q20161.pdf
LAND a real estate investment trust, or R E I T LAND
The geographic regions where our farms are located continues to experience steady appreciation
We currently own 23,456 acres on 47 farms in seven states in the United States. We also own some cooling facilities, packing houses, and processing facilities as well; there is several other structures on the farms. These are part of the farming operation on our farms.
We have a couple of different lease structures that we use for our tenants and we have been extremely successful in our leasing strategy. We've been able to average an average annual increase of over 16% on lease renewals over the past three years.
There are no new farms being developed in most of these areas because all of the arable land is currently being farmed or it has already been converted to other uses, such as housing, schools, or factories.
The trend that we are seeing is a steady decrease in a number of farms in our growing regions have been sold or converted to suburban uses. So California alone has been losing about 100,000 acres of farms per year. This has caused the farms that we own to be highly sought after and they have been rented for decades without ever being vacant.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-land-earnings-conference-174914965.html
Farmland Partners Inc:FPI
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate
http://ir.farmlandpartners.com/file.aspx?iid=4426904&fid=33287632
FPACX owns 0.31% of assets here.Very small position in a $17 bil fund.
U.S. FARMING REALTY TRUST I, 0.07%
35,000,000 U.S. FARMING REALTY TRUST II, 0.24%
TOTAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS: 53,567,775.00 0.31%
The sponsor of those trusts offered another opportunity last year.Maybe they"ll put together another in the future . Save your money for the minimum! Probably only available to "accredited Investors"
Issuer
U.S. Farming
Realty Trust III,
LP
/s/ Charlie
McNairy
Charlie McNairy
Manager, International
Farming Corporation
GP3, LLC
2015-07-17
11. Minimum Investment
Minimum investment accepted from any outside investor
$ 1,300,000
http://b4utrade.brand.edgar-online.com/efxapi/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingCONVPDF1?SessionID=CzTMe5a8UvZMR8Y&ID=10812508
With a glass of wine. American Farmland Company.AFCO
http://www.americanfarmlandcompany.com/portfolio.html
NY Times Business Day from 07/22/14
Cash Crops With Dividends
How a few sophisticated investors found a way to transform
strawberries into securities. Copyright © 2014 by The New York Times Comp
http://investors.americanfarmlandcompany.com/Cache/1001205369.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001205369&iid=4589976
Not Always Wine and Roses
American Farmland Announces Review of Strategic Alternatives
Company Release - 4/14/2016 4:01 PM ET
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- American Farmland Company (NYSE MKT:AFCO) (the “Company”), a specialized real estate investment trust focused on the ownership, acquisition, development and management of a portfolio of diversified, high-quality U.S. farmland, today announced that its Board of Directors has authorized the Company to commence a review of strategic alternatives to enhance shareholder value.
Since the Company’s October 19, 2015 initial public offering, its shares have consistently traded at a substantial discount to net asset value which, as of December 31, 2015, was estimated to be $10.05 per share. The Company’s net asset value is based upon independent third-party appraisals of its farms which were performed as of December 31, 2015. The Company has retained Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Raymond James & Associates, Inc. as its financial advisors and Goodwin Procter LLP as legal counsel to assist in a comprehensive analysis of all potential strategic alternatives. Alternatives to be explored may include, among others, joint venture arrangements, a merger of the Company, or a sale of all or part of the Company and/or its assets
http://investors.americanfarmlandcompany.com/file/Index?KeyFile=33849746