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."

Declining stock market = lower highs, lower lows
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^IXIC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^RUT+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1013881/000119312516592561/d187587d497.htm
497 1 d187587d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST
Supplement Dated May 17, 2016
To the Prospectus and Summary Prospectuses Dated November 30, 2015
for
Nuveen Tradewinds Global All-Cap Fund
Nuveen Tradewinds International Value Fund
Nuveen Tradewinds Japan Fund
And to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated October 30, 2015
for
Nuveen Tradewinds Value Opportunities Fund
Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC (“NFAL”), the Funds’ investment adviser, intends to propose that the Board of Trustees of the Funds (the “Board”) approve the reorganizations of Nuveen Tradewinds Global All-Cap Fund and Nuveen Tradewinds Value Opportunities Fund into Nuveen NWQ Global Equity Income Fund (“Global Equity Income Fund”). Global Equity Income Fund is advised by NFAL and sub-advised by its affiliate, NWQ Asset Management, LLC (“NWQ”). NFAL expects to make this proposal at a Board meeting currently scheduled for late May. If the Board approves the proposal, the reorganization of each Tradewinds Fund will be subject to approval of the Fund’s shareholders.
At the same meeting, Nuveen also intends to propose that the Board approve the transfer of the sub-advisory agreements for Nuveen Tradewinds International Value Fund and Nuveen Tradewinds Japan Fund from Tradewinds Global Investors, LLC to NWQ. Peter Boardman is expected to become an employee of NWQ and to continue to serve as the Funds’ portfolio manager following the proposed transfer.
Additional information on these proposals will be provided to Fund shareholders following the late May Board meeting.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR
FUND’S PROSPECTUS AND/OR SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Maybe Warren Buffet to the rescue?
Warren Buffet-Backed Group In Bid For Yahoo
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/14/technology/yahoo-sale-buffett/

By James Picerno | May 16, 2016 at 06:16 am EDT http://www.capitalspectator.com
Year-over-year returns are still battling with red-ink syndrome. The handful of winners for trailing 12-month column are led by US REITs, which are ahead by a solid 10% via Vanguard REIT E T F (VNQ), based on the past 252 trading days. But the majority of funds post declines. Note, however, that the worst performer for the trailing one-year period is emerging-market stocks. For the first time in recent memory, commodities are no longer dead last—a distinction that now goes to Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets (VWO).

http://www.capitalspectator.com/commodities-last-weeks-asset-class-leader/
Asian shares off 2 month lows
Asian shares recovered from two-month lows on Tuesday after a rebound in technology giant Apple Corp and oil price gains boosted Wall Street.
Yet concerns about a slowdown in the Chinese economy could weigh on Asian shares after investment, factory output and retail sales all grew more slowly than expected in April, in data published on Saturday.
In the past month, shares in Greater China are among the worst performers globally, with Hong Kong, Taiwan and Shanghai shares all registering fall of around 7 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN0Y8017

FYI: Since peaking out at 2,130.82 (on a closing basis) last May, the S&P 500 has seen its share of volatility. Despite the big swings, though, the index is currently within 3% of that all-time closing high from one year ago. Come this weekend, though, the S&P 500 will have gone a year without making a new 52-week high. While that may not sound like much, given that 2014 saw the fifth most daily closes at an all-time high on record, it has been a bit of an adjustment period for investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/big-tips/b-i-g-tips-sp-500-treading-water/

FYI: Sometimes an ETF isn’t exactly an ETF.
As investors, the media and regulators put more focus on exchange-traded funds, it's worth asking what exactly an ETF is.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/why-the-etf-acronym-can-be-misleading

Wow, thanks for this, MSF, I'd naively assumed that the 0.25% 12b fee was all that NTF funds paid on Schwab. But it seems like the transaction fee funds have the same ER whether on Schwab or directly at the company, so I guess the fund company is swallowing Schwab's fee.

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).

FYI: Cramer’s Action Alerts Plus portfolio has underperformed the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.85% in terms of total cumulative returns since its 2001 inception, according to a working paper released Friday by Jonathan Hartley and Matthew Olson, researchers from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jim-cramer-doesnt-beat-the-market-2016-05-13/print
CXO Adivsory: Jim Cramer Deconstructed:
http://www.cxoadvisory.com/2809/individual-gurus/jim-cramer/

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.

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

I respectfully disagree. While much of the content superficially resembles motherhood, the column is supported by references and encapsulation that is seen too infrequently.
Mr. Zweig reports on the acceptance status of a professional code of conduct. Did you know that most firms won't sign on? Were you even aware of this code? I wasn't.
If investment firms are already as ethical as you feel, why do they fight so hard against putting that in writing? Whether that is being held to a fiduciary standard, or to the loyalty standard in this code: to "place client interests before their own".
Asset managers competing on costs or dying? Too many high cost families thriving to support that. Which gets us back to ethics - these high cost funds exist in part because advisers sell them as "suitable", they're just not the best for their clients.
I do find that Mr. Zweig may be pining a bit too much for the "good old days". Around 1960, it is true that the vast majority of equity funds charged 0.50%. But rather than representing competition, this uniformity was viewed by an SEC study as evidence of lack of competition.
That study (The Wharton Report) also noted that many funds were actually owned by brokerages (e.g. the Dreyfus Fund). My suspicion, though I'm still wading through all of this, is that brokerage commissions (which were much higher in 1960) is where a good chunk of the profits came from. Total fund expenses (including trading commissions) were possibly as high as today.
Asset management companies have always gotten their fees. They've just moved them around from one form to another as the industry has changed. Schwab gets rid of load funds but continues to increase the fees it collects on NTF funds. Advisers charge wrap fees instead of collecting loads. Different structure, similar cost.

It's not looking so good for farmland; some similarities to the picture of the mid-1980s, when a lot of family farms got overextended and were crushed and lost everything. But not that dire (yet), so I don't anticipate that much calamity. It's just gonna take some time for the fundamentals to improve.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-14/american-farmer-its-death-1000-knives”-us-farmland-values-plunge-most-30-years
https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/agletter/2015-2019/may-2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
Nonetheless, many of the TBTF banksters went into farmland in a big way in the mid-00s and bought up what they could (and, of course, "financialized/securitized" it), so I'd hesitate investing in anything publicly-traded because I'd be concerned I'd be encouraging the corporate farming trend and hastening the demise of a way of life I think is very important to preserve (not to mention the loss of local control and good environmental stewardship).
On the other hand, there are a number of farmers in the Midwest who are continuing to pool their needs into some rather substantial cooperative businesses, and I've seen several interesting preferred stock offerings, with good yields and very ample dvd coverage, if you wanted to invest for income with a margin of safety. However, I haven't pulled that string because it was my impression, the deeper I went in researching them, that they are very tightly-held, and one would have to put in many buy orders, over time, to ever get lucky and have one filled. Not my territory.... could be dead wrong about it. Anyone who knows something about how to buy stuff so off the beaten path, please take me to school!

Hi Guys,
I like Jason Zweig. He is at or near the top of my ranking of all financial writers. Indeed, I like Jason Zweig a lot.
Although I’ve never kept score, I probably agree with 95% of his writings without reservation. But I do take exception to his current WSJ article. I believe that it is far off target.
Sure, asking financial advisors and analysts to be “prudent, honest, and ethical” is equivalent to motherhood, but I believe many more are so inclined than are commonly credited. Those who are not so dedicated are eventually discovered and they disappear from the landscape. Should standards be higher? Of course they should, but that too is pure motherhood.
Just a little due diligence allows us to choose those who satisfy our needs and to discard those who are suspiciously self-promoters. I’m not alarmed that only about half of those asked risk recommending anyone as a financial guru. What satisfies me will likely not satisfy someone else, given our disparate timescales, investment styles, education, and investment goals. Why run that risk?
All of Zweig’s 4 main points in his article are weak arguments and fail to make his case.
Costs always matter, and every investor is fully aware of that crippling handicap. If asset managers overcharge for their services, they will simply not survive the fierce competition.
Many fund managers fully recognize market size constraints and adopt appropriate strategies to navigate these limitations. Again, if they fail to do so, their returns suffer and they ultimately fail. The marketplace is a cruel disciplinarian.
I don’t believe financial firms try an endless array of investment strategies to select one that statistically worked in the past. That approach is putting the cart before the horse. It’s recognized as a losing method. I believe these firms formulate an investing idea, a concept, a candidate strategy first, and next they challenge its worthiness using backtesting approaches for verification and selling purposes.
A firm is not long for this world if it does not invest in its own product. Savvy investors always check that item early in their down-selection process.
I would have closed the article with yet another “ethical acronym”. Permit me to add WWWB to the article’s short list. In this instance I mean What Would Warren Buy? I trust his wisdom more than my Mom only when investing is the issue.
This is just one man’s opinion. Zweig must have been hard pressed to complete this column facing an eminent publishing deadline. What is your assessment?
Best Regards.

Seems every year or two a thread along this line comes up, discussing how much funds pay the supermarkets to participate either NTF or TF. I ran across a sizeable M* column from two years ago that goes into detail.
Morningstar, NTF Platforms Can Mean Higher Costs (November 6, 2014)
Highlighting a bit of the column: "Oddly, those fees have gone up since the 1990s ... despite the fact that technology has made servicing fund accounts much cheaper. ... Indeed, NTF fees may have risen to compensate for declining trading revenues".
Let me quantify that a bit. Schwab OneSource (NTF) started in 1992. At the time, Schwab charged 0.25% (sometimes as much as 0.35%) That actually made economic sense for boutiques that couldn't service directly sold accounts for less. Not for Vanguard of course, but for many smaller funds.
Over time, the rates rose. According to the WSJ, in 2003 Schwab's typical fee, which had already risen to 0.35% was raised to 0.40%. In addition, Schwab started charging TF funds for the first time. The original fee was $20/account/year. The article goes on to note that families like Longleaf and Yacktman balked (so they were closed to new investments). But Schwab didn't impose the fee on Fidelity or Vanguard.
WSJ, Schwab Fees Steer Some Funds to the Exits, Others Get a Pass (May 5, 2003) - link is google search, pick first result.
Today, the fees are even higher. NTF fees are typically 0.40%, but can go as high as 0.45%. TF funds now typically pay 0.10% (but as high as 0.25%) per year in addition to the aforementioned $20/account/year (which can go as high as $30).
Schwab Compensation Disclosure
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).
Older thread on same topic:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15542/how-much-do-fund-companies-pay-to-be-on-fund-supermarket-platforms

FYI: It’s high time that individual investors had their own equivalent of a Bill of Rights.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/13/an-investors-credo-to-live-by-what-would-mom-buy/

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
The roller coast ride continues for investors in commodity-focused funds, as witnessed Wednesday with the announced liquidation of the 19-year-old Oppenheimer Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund (QRAAX).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160513/FREE/160519957?template=printart

@DanHardy: Sorry Dan, but the Linkster already touched this base.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/27546/baml-investors-dump-stocks-at-fastest-rate-since-aug-2011#latest

Dig a bit deeper on Royce -- look at how many of their funds have significant stakes in international stocks (say, above 5-7% or so). Some have topped 25% or more. Look at how many of them regularly hold mid-caps (hence the reason Royce refers to themselves "small-er cap" specialists).
Yet their benchmark is always one of the US small cap index. That is, when they list a benchmark. You see, in Royce's annual and semi-annual reports for funds that are having a bad stretch, they suppress some rolling intervals, as well as the benchmark returns and other performance metrics. And, no, its not just for the newer funds which don't have a sufficient track record. Nearly every single report for the past several years has done this -- and they're not consistent in which funds' data they suppress.
Don't let the bow tie fool you. Royce only wants your money. And if they don't have a fund that suits you, they'll re-name or create a parallel copy-cat fund to suit.