Here are some Muni C E F's with current Premium/
Discounts to nav ( Pricey ?)
NUW + 2.34
NMZ +1.29
OIA -0.26
NBH +1.04
Good spots for further research.
Nuveen Tax-Exempt Municipal Debt - National Municipals
http://www.nuveen.com/CEF/DailyPricingTaxExempt.aspx
Source for C E F reseach
http://www.cefconnect.com
I have OIA on my watch list and own @fundalarm mentioned BGH
From Bill Gross
In a world of barely visible interest rates, it pays to borrow, rather than invest, Bill Gross tells Barron's. One way to do that is are closed-end funds which borrow and lever assets 35-50%, and his fund,:JUCAX, has 8-9% of its money in CEFs trading at a discount to NAV. Two favorites are the Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities fund (NYSE:JPC) and the Duff & Phelps Global Utility Income fund (NYSE:DPG). (These two are not muni's)
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3172321-bill-gross-let-others-borrow
Mr Gundlach has also mentioned C E F's in recent commentaries as viable income producers in the current investment environment.
Speaking of Mr Gundlach,maybe he'll be clear on his outlook for High Yield and other financial assets in the coming week.Usually fun to listen to in this format.

Asset Allocation Webcast
Please join us for a live webcast titled "Asset Allocation Webcast" hosted by:
Jeffrey Gundlach
Mr. Gundlach will be discussing the economy, the markets and his outlook for what he believes may be the best investment strategies and sector allocations for the DoubleLine Core Fixed Income Fund (DBLFX/DLFNX) and Flexible Income Fund (DFLEX/DLINX).
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
1:15 pm PT/4:15 pm ET /3:15 CT
Register here
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1085514

Wow! I just took a look at NHMAX it has matched its previous all time high of 17.51
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NHMAX+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}

The prospectus text, which is unusually clear on the subject:
Payment of Redemption Requests
Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Fund may pay the redemption price to you in cash or in portfolio securities, or partly in cash and partly in portfolio securities.
The Fund has adopted a policy under which the Fund may limit cash payments in connection with redemption requests to $250,000 during any ninety (90) day period. As a result, the Fund may pay you in securities or partly in securities if the amount of Fund shares that you redeem is more than $250,000.
It is highly likely that the Fund will pay you in securities or partly in securities if you make a redemption (or series of redemptions) in an amount greater than $250,000.
David

Good stuff, but imho, the videos have gotten a little repetitive. Nowadays I'm finding the portfolio reviews more informative; most of the newer material he covers in the videos seems to be also in the reviews, and it doesn't take 15 minutes to read the reviews. Again, just mho - not saying he isn't still doing a great job communicating.

Jerry's correct above. And I won't argue that Sequoia management screwed up royally in managing their fund.
But here's the crux of the WSJ article:
"Sequoia’s repayment approach, called a “redemption in kind,” is part of a longstanding fund policy that allows it to give shareholders mostly stock if they are pulling out $250,000 or more. A person close to the firm said it has done thousands of in-kind transactions over many years and that the majority are done for redemptions in excess of $1 million."
If Sequoia failed to disclose RIK in its Prospectus that's a serious legal matter. In all likelihood it was mentioned. I've seen similar language in many prospectuses for my funds. It's not uncommon. Bottom line: Read and understand your Prospectus before you invest.
Additionally ... How many on this board will ever have occasion to pull a quarter-million dollars from one fund all at once (which is what triggered the RIK in this case)?
WSJ fails to address Mr. Bently's age and circumstance. Sequoia's annual/semi-annual reports should have revealed to him that Sequoia was concentrated in only a dozen or so securities. Ed S. addresses this issue in David's April 1 Commentary. In a nutshell: Potential rewards are high with a concentrated portfolio. So are the risks. If I'm reading Ed correctly, he has serious reservations concerning the suitability of highly concentrated portfolios for retirees.
msf has a good thread running on the topic of disclosure. Personally, I'm often guilty of clicking on "Accept these terms" without due diligence whenever Apple, Amazon or PayPal update their terms of use (not smart I know). But I love reading financial literature and so very much enjoy reading over prospectuses and reports for the funds I own. (And don't like the dumbed-down "summary" prospectuses either.)

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
When Tom Bentley tried to pull his money from a mutual fund troubled by its large stake in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., he instead received shares in a Springfield, Mo. auto-parts retailer.
Sequoia Fund Inc. sent the retired computer hardware engineer about 5% of his money in cash and the rest was stock in one company–O’Reilly Automotive Inc. Mr. Bentley said he sold the shares as soon as they appeared in his account on April 7, but they had already dropped in value
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Clients+Pull+Cash+From+Valeant+Investor,+Get+Stock+Instead++wsj

http://www.seafarerfunds.com/video/2016/03/quarterly-briefing/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly&utm_content=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly+CID_093448545840c6355a189d212fe43027&utm_source=E mail Campaign&utm_term=Quarterly Briefing
For those invested-- or who just like to watch-- here's one "interpretive reading" of the continuing EM turmoil. (Maybe) every little bit counts.

@Junkster: i agree these have been better relative value. please note that lots of loans are made to junkier credits, especially those to smaller energy companies. the recent oil action has resulted already in a bunch of bankruptcies, but more to come, since a lot of interest coverage modeling was done with oil at above $50.
loans, even more than bonds, are very flow dependent. since joe retail is not very much educated about loans, their flows haven't swelled as much as those for the bonds, hence the underperformance (in my view). another kink is that latest SEC liquidity proposal which could make daily liquidity loan mutual funds all but extinct.
since i dabble in CEFs, i choose those that have discretion to allocate to both. i trust that managers will pick up the relative value. BGH, which suffered mightily due to its energy exposure is on the rebound, so is HNW for example and more single asset thingies such as JRO/JQC/JSD/VTA/VVR, etc.

Thanks fundalarm nice post above. So let's get off topic. Any insights on bank loan/senior loans/leveraged loan/floating rate funds???? Talk about a stealth bull market or at least one under the radar. Some of the open end ala EVFAX have had but one down day since 2/17 and a multi percentage rise. Plus juicy yields around 5%. I hold EVFAX and SAMBX overbought as they are. Not as exciting recently as NHMRX or the junk corps and emerging markets debt when they are moving, but real steady eddies. Below is an excerpt of some comments in early March in Barrons on this often misunderstood asset class.
>>>>>Most loan funds have attractive yields of 5% to 6%—up to 9% for closed-end funds. Loan funds have credit risk, but are much less volatile than junk-bond funds when credit conditions weaken; and loan investors get paid back before bondholders in the event of a default. The loan market has about 4% exposure to the troubled energy sector now, compared to 15% for junk bonds.
As an added bonus, most loans have interest rates that float with prevailing rates. So if the Fed hikes several more times, many loans will yield more. Without interest-rate risk, loans tend not to correlate with other fixed-income assets.
Now is a good time to buy, because these loans are selling at about a 10% discount to par. They sold off, along with high yield, as investors worried that the U.S. was going into recession, but they haven’t recovered. “The asset class has always offered a nice risk-adjusted return over a three-to-five- year time period,” says Craig Russ, co-director of floating-rate loans at Eaton Vance. “But the last two years they’ve underperformed, creating this attractive entry point.”
There’s another good sign, says Jean Joseph, a portfolio manager at Goldman Sachs Asset Management: The default rate priced into the loan market is 7.5%, when the average default rate historically is 3%; and the current rate is still below that. “The market is pricing in defaults close to 2.5 times what we expect this year,” Joseph says.<<<<<<<<

i glanced over one of your links and found the following references:
"The Junk Bond Index rate has increased significantly… driving prices downward to a 4-year low" and "High-yield spreads over Treasuries are significantly higher now than they have been leading up to any Federal Funds “Liftoff” during previous cycles." (bold face is mine)
the first quote talks about rates while the other talks about spreads.
Generally, reference to 'prices' of junk bonds is reference to spreads. just like one quotes equity at a dollar price, as in 'VRX trades in low $30s', you quote junk in spreads - 650 bps to treasury.... that's the convention. and Gundlach, of all people, who breathes bonds, knows it better than anyone.
i venture to say that CNBC put up the JNK chart to illustrate his point, and I absolutely agree that using price only chart for JNK is misleading. All investments are total return vehicles, and the higher the yield, the more important it is to incorporate it in any return discussion.

i hope you're now suggesting that Gundlach doesn't know how to calculate total return for a bond fund.
he was referring to spread widening which started in August. junk spreads went to widths that were unheard of outside a full blown recession at the time (and earlier this year.) they have contracted since as you and others have noticed...
best, FA

Total return charts are the only way to go with bond funds as they include reinvested dividends. Price only charts for bond funds don't *remotely* begin to paint an accurate picture. Don't mind me, just one of my pet peeves. I recall Gundlach saying on CNBC late last summer how junk bonds (JNK) were making 4 to 5 year lows. Nothing could have been further from the truth as he was just looking at a price only chart and completely ignoring dividends.

Not exactly. The first link in October 2015 he says junk bonds are at 4 year lows. REALLY WRONG! The second link from this January he says junk bonds are trading at levels below those seen during 2012. REALLY WRONG! I would have to look further but he also said something to the same effect late this summer. He says nothing about spreads but simply junk bonds. When I saw him on CNBC this summer he was using a chart of JNK. Gundlach likes to make news enhancing announcements. I hope there is a crash in junk bonds so he can be proven right about that many times prediction.
Edit: For the record, junk went into a steep decline in January and bottomed on 2/11. At its lowest point it hit levels not seen since 12/11/12. Junk bonds were never at 4 year lows at anytime. When he made his comments in early January of trading at levels below those seen during 2012 not even remotely close. To have been at levels below those seen in 2012 junk would have had to have declined another 12+% from its 2/11 lows.
http://citywireselector.com/news/gundlach-credit-concerns-and-what-happened-with-bill-gross/a847840
https://www.markettamer.com/blog/gundlach-on-the-feds-amazing-blunder

i hope you're now suggesting that Gundlach doesn't know how to calculate total return for a bond fund.
he was referring to spread widening which started in August. junk spreads went to widths that were unheard of outside a full blown recession at the time (and earlier this year.) they have contracted since as you and others have noticed...
best, FA

Total return charts are the only way to go with bond funds as they include reinvested dividends. Price only charts for bond funds don't *remotely* begin to paint an accurate picture. Don't mind me, just one of my pet peeves. I recall Gundlach saying on CNBC late last summer how junk bonds (JNK) were making 4 to 5 year lows. Nothing could have been further from the truth as he was just looking at a price only chart and completely ignoring dividends.

"a low tolerance for risk"
Ummm ... you might reflect on that conclusion in light of the positioning of my portfolio, which I publish annually. In the non-retirement portfolio, about 50% of my money is in equities and 50% in income-producing securities. Within the equity sleeve, 50% is international and within international more than 50% is a combination of small, emerging and frontier. Domestic is overweight small- to micro-cap which a distinct value pitch. I have no savings account (0.01% APR does nothing for me) but instead balance very conservative income-oriented investments (the aforementioned RPHYX) with quite aggressive ones.
It might be a bit misleading to point to one fund and generalize from it. I mean, really, why is substituting RPHYX and RPSIX for CDs and a savings account "risk averse"?
My self-description would be closer to this: "I will accept no risk unless I perceive a serious assymetry, in which the probable upside is substantially greater than the probable downside." One measure of the ability of a manager to achieve that goal is to look at a risk-return ratio over a meaningful period of time. My default is Sharpe over a full market cycle. The FMC orientation simply reflects the fact that I have better things to do than try to time my portfolio; I have neither the interest nor the discipline to pull that off. Some folks do, although the evidence suggests a far larger number simply thinks they do.
So, if you start with my premise - high risk-return ratio over meaningful periods - which small caps should I be looking at? When I screen for open, retail small cap funds - domestic, global, international - no-load or load-waived at Scottrade and sort by descending Sharpe, the top ones are:
1. Intrepid Endeavor, first by a lot. ARIVX is a near-clone in terms of risk-return but it doesn't have a full cycle record.
2. Westwood Mighty Mites
3. Homestead Small Cap
4. Pinnacle Value
5. Tributary Small Cap.
If you play with the risk-reward measure (Sortino, Martin, Ulcer Index) you get a slight shuffle of the top ten with the addition of Queens Road SCV and Royce Special.
I'm not enamored with the Royce or Gabelli organizations. Love Homestead's low minimum initial investment ($500), don't love the $1.2 billion size as much. Queens Road is very much worth a look. Tributary really would qualify as "in the shadows." And still the numbers point most consistently to ICMAX and the much-derided ARIVX.
I bet you're wondering why I buy and sell funds so rarely. Briefly, I go through this sort of pondering with every single one.
David

Hi @Old_Joe
I thought you were also going to "trust" me; so that I might fund/direct monies to the local high school music/band program. Sadly, not much money arrives any longer from state education funds for such functions.
What is directing you towards Vanguard for this trust? And/or is Vanguard only one of several areas for these monies?
Edit: a quick look at Fido trust services indicates an annual fee range of: .85-1.70%, variable upon acct. and a minimum of $200k.
Thank you and take care,
Catch

Total return charts are the only way to go with bond funds as they include reinvested dividends. Price only charts for bond funds don't *remotely* begin to paint an accurate picture. Don't mind me, just one of my pet peeves. I recall Gundlach saying on CNBC late last summer how junk bonds (JNK) were making 4 to 5 year lows. Nothing could have been further from the truth as he was just looking at a price only chart and completely ignoring dividends.

Macro View
The Global Liquidity Trap Turns More Treacherous
April 07, 2016 Global CIO Commentary by Scott Minerd © 2016 Guggenheim Partners,
As options for further QE diminish, negative rates have become the shiny new tool kit of monetary policy orthodoxy.
If Dr. Draghi and Dr. Kuroda do not get the outcome they want from their QE prescriptions—which is highly likely—then more negative rates will be on the way.
It would not be a surprise to see the overnight rates in Europe and Japan go to negative 1 percent or lower, which will in turn pull down other rates along their respective yield curves.
Negative rates at these levels would make U.S. Treasurys much more attractive on a relative basis, driving yields even lower than they are today.
If the European overnight rate were cut to minus 1 percent from its current level of negative 40 basis points, German 10-year bunds would be dragged into negative territory and we could see 10-year Treasurys yielding 1 percent or less.
https://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/macroview/the-global-liquidity-trap-turns-more-treacherous
@DanHardy
As @Junkster has observed,High Yield Muni's may be a bit pricey here.But an investor has to measure the possible tax advantages against current risks,I'm going to see my tax accountant tomorrow and I think that subject will come up.
Closed End Option
Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund Price Premium +1.37% to N A V 52 Wk Avg -0.42%
NMZ Distribution Rate
Market (As of 04/06/2016) 6.48% Seeks to provide:
Attractive monthly tax-free income

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nmz/stock-chart#ixzz45CK2V9m5
E T F Option Div/yield Monthly /4.47%
SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond E T F Stock Chart (E T F)
HYMB

This is actually pretty stunning. I'd bet Russell Kinnel did a double-take, if not a triple, on some of these.
From a Barron's blog note on this report:

Each year, editors at Morningstar pick the best 500 funds from the universe of roughly 8,000 that they cover and create a list known as the Morningstar Mutual Fund 500. Nearly half of these funds have seen at least a 10% decline in assets under management in the 12 months ended February. Some 61 have seen at least a 25% drawdown, while another 18 have seen at least a 40% reduction in assets. Here’s Kinnel:
“If we had just endured a brutal bear market, then the wave of redemptions would be par for the course. But this comes after a tremendous equity rally and therefore is unprecedented.”

http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/07/unprecedented-outflows-from-u-s-stock-funds-could-leave-remaining-investors-holding-the-bag/?mod=BOLBlog
Of course, doesn't this suggest just how little worth a great many investors find in M* recommendations? :)

------ M* PORTFOLIO ALERT = RPHYX & FPACX
Portfolio Name: all
04/05/2016
FPACX: FPA Crescent
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 5 stars. For details, click here
RPHYX: RiverPark Short Term High Yield Retail
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here

Junk Sovereigns ?? A Real Reach?
Markets | Thu Apr 7, 2016 4:46pm EDT
After 15 years, Argentina set for bond market return
By Joy Wiltermuth
Now it will hold a five-day roadshow in the UK and the US as it preps a new bond expected to raise $12 billion - or more - to help pay off holdouts who had rejected a debt restructuring.
Finance Secretary Luis Caputo and Undersecretary Santiago Bausili will each lead teams meeting with investors in London, Boston, New York, Washington and Los Angeles.
Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan and Santander are arranging the meetings, but few other details were immediately available.
"The dealers on it are keeping it hush-hush until they are ready to come to market," said Sean Newman, a senior portfolio manager at Invesco Fixed Income.
One of the lead banks told IFR that investors had not yet been given any information about the ultimate size of the deal or the potential currencies of issuance.
At US$12bn, the transaction would be the largest ever from an emerging markets borrower, according to Thomson Reuters data.
"It does mean something really huge for Argentina," said Bianca Taylor, a senior sovereign emerging markets analyst at investment management firm Loomis, Sayles & Company.
"They are back in the game with the curing of this longstanding issue with the holdouts, and they once again have access to the foreign capital markets."
One trader in New York said he had heard yields whispered in the 7.5 percent range, but said 8.5 percent on a 10-year bond was a more feasible target given the current climate.
But Taylor said a useful comparable would be a Brazil 10-year currently trading at 6.13 percent.
"The talk of 7.5 percent seems rich for a country still in a balance-of-payments crisis and just coming out of default."
In addition, after being unable to raise debt abroad for so long, Argentina might well come to market with a debt sale larger than US$12 billion in order to replenish its coffers and plug at least some of its fiscal deficit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-bonds-idUSKCN0X42O6
@DanHardy You're not the only one expecting low rates to remain for some time.
Yield Curve Madness
Posted on April 6, 2016 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
,,yield on the 10-year US Treasury hit 1.73 percent. After starting the year at 2.24 percent, the benchmark yield dropped to 1.63 percent when the stock market bottomed out on February 11th and then climbed to 1.98 percent before falling again.
As low as your yields are today, they are among the highest in the developed world, as the chart below shows. The chart includes the G7 countries (with the benchmark eurozone rate representing Germany, France and Italy), Switzerland and Australia (each representing the highest and lowest rates in the developed world).

This chart is striking for at least three reasons. First, the overall level of rates is just appallingly low across the world. The idea that the highest rates are still a paltry 2.5 percent is troubling.
Second, and even more bothersome, is that three of the curves are negative all the way out to 10 years. There are other countries with negative yields like Denmark, but the idea that the euro benchmark curve is negative is striking.
Finally, there are only three ‘normal’ yield curves, where rates rise as the maturity goes out further into the future. The US has the steepest curve, although it’s far flatter now than it was six months ago.
http://acrinv.com/yield-curve-madness/

@David &Derf: All I have to say is ....................!
Regards,
Ted