@johnN
What say you??? Do you have a date in mind? Do you suspect that real estate will crash again leading to other problems; or perhaps other problems will lead to an eventual weakening in real estate.
Below is a 2014 short write about baby boomer trends. This group likely holds a lot of real estate at this time. What will happen to this real estate when the boomers leave the planet?
Still location, location, location??? I suspect location is still very important. 'Course, this continues to have a direct link to "work" and "wages", eh? Now, your part of the world has some areas literally "under water". What is this doing for real estate prices today?
Real estate prices in general may remain static and not "crash" again. A crash presumes a fall from some over elevated level, yes??? How long before the 35% or so, of 18-35 year olds move out of their parents homes to pressure real estate prices?
Lots of questions.
What do the doom and gloom web sites predict?
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2014/07/22/12-baby-boomer-retirement-trends

FYI: As investors search for bargains in a world of overpriced assets, they should be guided by the EMH.
That isn’t the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which holds that the price of a security reflects all available information. It’s my own Emetic Market Hypothesis, which says if the mere thought of owning an asset turns your stomach, that’s probably a sign you should buy
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/27/hold-your-nose-and-buy-europe/

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Doogle Search)
The real estate industry, which knows a something about the importance of location, soon will be able to boast a prime spot in the investing world: a sector of its own in the major market indexes.
It’s the biggest change to the classification system underpinning the Standard & Poor’s 500 and the MSCI equity benchmarks since the current sectors were established in 1999. The move signals the increasing importance of real estate as an asset class in global equity markets and is expected to lift and broaden the appeal of.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=5+REITs+Worth+A+Look+WSJ

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. :)

Bill Gross has around $700 million invested in JUCDX, so he is paying Janus around $7 million a year in expense fees

I have a suspicious mind. I don't think Bill has an ER for his money in the fund even though his portion makes up more 50% of the AUM.
Charge everyone else twice as much in order to cover his expenses. The fund looks like it collect $13 million in ER based on the math ($1.3B AUM * 1.01% ER).

The question that arises for me is, "Do you need quick access to this cash?" If you participate in a fund supermarket, you may not be able to liquidate an MF bond fund holding for quite some time without paying a penalty. The ETF route may make more sense, but you've got to factor in commissions. For me, I'm willing to pay Schwab and TDA supermarket fund fees in exchange for the convenience of margin,commission-free ETFs, and quick transfers to my checking account if a bill has to be paid. I hold little "cash," but I have plenty of cash at my disposal. I have short-term bond holdings in RPHYX and PTIAX that were established more than 180 days ago, so I can treat them as cash and let Chuck figure out the small amount of tax I owe on a sale.

I use VCSH, which is a short term corporate etf. It has more risk than a government bond fund, but at 2% yield, fits the bill for me. I have some cash parked there now. You can get more yield with an intermediate fund, but at 10 basis points expense and high quality that Vanguard is known for, hard to beat for the risk taken.

FYI: One of the problems with the typical “trust me, we got this” attitude that you often see with financial professionals is the fact that most of the time their unwitting clients don’t really even understand what’s going on in their own portfolios. There are really no independent parties overseeing the overseers so a lot of the time it’s the clients who are left to judge the fund managers, advisors and consultants who are managing their money. Most investors aren’t qualified to be able to judge the performance of those investing or making decisions on their behalf, so it’s basically a whatever-they-say goes arrangement. It’s hard for many clients to even know that they have subpar results because the “experts” they’re listening to set the expectations and benchmarks.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/05/how-the-finance-industry-tricks-you/

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

(Maybe it has something to do with Berwyn acquisition?)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834416013780/fp0019731_497.htm
497 1 fp0019731_497.htm
Chartwell Small Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”)
Class A Shares
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated May 27, 2016, to the
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated
March 1, 2016
The Board of Trustees of Investment Managers Series Trust (the “Trust”) has approved the termination and liquidation of the Fund’s Class A Shares. Effective immediately, the Class A Shares are closed to all new investment. The Fund’s Class A Shares will be liquidated on June 30, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. In addition, eligible shareholders may convert their Class A Shares into Class I Shares until the Liquidation Date. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to shareholders of the Class A Shares equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the Class A Shares.
Accordingly, as of the Liquidation Date, all references to the Fund’s Class A Shares in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information are hereby deleted in their entirety.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

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.

1.7% since he took over in October 2014 Obviously my account is but a miscroscopic fraction of Mr Ex Bond King. So who am I to talk. But seems like less than a pedestrian return in Bondville and you would have been better off in a 5 year CD.
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Bill-Gross-credit-bonds-debt/2016/05/26/id/730869/

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).

FYI: Janus Unconstrained Bond Fund has returned 1.6% under Gross.
Gross manages $2.5 billion, including $1.3 billion in fund.
Bill Gross says he’s satisfied with the performance of his Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund and plans to continue managing money for a long time.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/gross-says-he-s-happy-with-his-performance-and-plans-to-continue

@ep1: For your consideration, from U.S. News & World Report:
Regards,
Ted
Best Short-Term Bond Funds:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/short-term-bond

Hey MFOs!
I'd like to get some thoughts on short-term fixed income options. I'm looking for the 1+% type risk...right now my go-to is DoubleLine Low Duration but I know the MFO community can often come up with unique options that I would never find. All ideas welcome! Thanks!

OK, let me put this another way. If the fund were to loose 20%, would I also loose 20% of the income that I had been receiving prior to the loss, or would I receive the same income per share (let's say each share received 1$ income per year, would that change if the fund were to loose money?). I am comparing this to stock dividends, which end up going up when the market goes up, since the amount paid per share doesn't change.

If you owned the fund and were receiving $1 you should continue to received about $1 (unless a lot of companies went bankrupt and could not pay interest on their bonds).
You could go to Yahoo and look at the historical prices/dividends to see what happened in previous down turns for the fund.

OK, let me put this another way. If the fund were to loose 20%, would I also loose 20% of the income that I had been receiving prior to the loss, or would I receive the same income per share (let's say each share received 1$ income per year, would that change if the fund were to loose money?). I am comparing this to stock dividends, which end up going up when the market goes up, since the amount paid per share doesn't change.