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.

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