I don't make much of articles that lump everybody together. Unless you are willing to really look at you goals and risk tolerances and investigate how a particular manger fits, you are better off in a passive funds, but ones based on the broadest market possible.
The extreme out performance of FAANMG or whatever in the last few years has distorted everything.
I do think it is fair to ask mangers who are 100% invested if they beat their respective benchmark over time.
I tend to think "active management" should also include knowing when the market is too expensive and the potential long term return unattractive and be able to raise cash for a margin of safety.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026977/000139834423007351/fp0083232-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0083232-1_497.htm
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE FUNDS
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE INTERMEDIATE FIXED INCOME FUND
Servicing Class (CNRCX)
Institutional Class (CNRIX)
Class N (RIMCX)
Supplement dated April 14, 2023, to the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated January 31, 2023
The Board of Trustees of City National Rochdale Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the City National Rochdale Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (the “Fund”), which authorizes the termination, liquidation, and dissolution of the Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, effective as of the close of business on April 18, 2023, the Fund will be closed to all investments by existing shareholders, and no new Fund accounts may be opened. Shareholders may redeem their shares until the date of liquidation.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about May 26, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), and shareholders may voluntarily redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare and pay its shareholders of record one or more dividends or other distributions consisting of any undistributed income and net realized capital gains. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, City National Rochdale, LLC, the Fund’s adviser, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-888-889-0799 if you have any questions.
Important Information for Shareholders with IRA Accounts
If you hold your shares in an IRA, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the liquidation of the Fund. You may have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to “roll over” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to roll over your IRA account to avoid federal and potential state withholding deductions from your proceeds. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction, your shares will be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding.
If you have questions or need assistance, please contact a shareholder services representative of the Fund at 1-888-889-0799.
*****
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CNR-SK- 070-010

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026977/000139834423007354/fp0083232-2_497.htm
497 1 fp0083232-2_497.htm
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE FUNDS
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE GOVERNMENT BOND FUND
Servicing Class (CNBIX)
Class N (CGBAX)
Supplement dated April 14, 2023, to the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated January 31, 2023
The Board of Trustees of City National Rochdale Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the City National Rochdale Government Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which authorizes the termination, liquidation, and dissolution of the Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, effective as of the close of business on April 18, 2023, the Fund will be closed to all investments by existing shareholders, and no new Fund accounts may be opened. Shareholders may redeem their shares until the date of liquidation.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about May 26, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), and shareholders may voluntarily redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare and pay its shareholders of record one or more dividends or other distributions consisting of any undistributed income and net realized capital gains. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, City National Rochdale, LLC, the Fund’s adviser, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-888-889-0799 if you have any questions.
Important Information for Shareholders with IRA Accounts
If you hold your shares in an IRA, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the liquidation of the Fund. You may have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to “roll over” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to roll over your IRA account to avoid federal and potential state withholding deductions from your proceeds. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction, your shares will be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding.
If you have questions or need assistance, please contact a shareholder services representative of the Fund at 1-888-889-0799.
*****
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CNR-SK- 073-0100

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026977/000139834423007355/fp0083232-3_497.htm
497 1 fp0083232-3_497.htm
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE FUNDS
CITY NATIONAL ROCHDALE CORPORATE BOND FUND
Servicing Class (CNCIX)
Class N (CCBAX)
Supplement dated April 14, 2023, to the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated January 31, 2023
The Board of Trustees of City National Rochdale Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the City National Rochdale Corporate Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which authorizes the termination, liquidation, and dissolution of the Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, effective as of the close of business on April 18, 2023, the Fund will be closed to all investments by existing shareholders, and no new Fund accounts may be opened. Shareholders may redeem their shares until the date of liquidation.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about May 26, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), and shareholders may voluntarily redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare and pay its shareholders of record one or more dividends or other distributions consisting of any undistributed income and net realized capital gains. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, City National Rochdale, LLC, the Fund’s adviser, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-888-889-0799 if you have any questions.
Important Information for Shareholders with IRA Accounts
If you hold your shares in an IRA, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the liquidation of the Fund. You may have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to “roll over” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to roll over your IRA account to avoid federal and potential state withholding deductions from your proceeds. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction, your shares will be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding.
If you have questions or need assistance, please contact a shareholder services representative of the Fund at 1-888-889-0799.
*****
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CNR-SK- 072-0100

I'm comparing private CRE partnerships(LP role) to publicly traded MLP's where one is an individual investor. I suppose there are partnerships that invest in energy/pipelines but to my knowledge these are far less in number than partnerships focussed on real estate.
1031 exchange within a RE partnership is messy and complicated I agree but it is available as an option vs. not being available at all to an individual investor holding publicly traded MLP's(to the best of my knowledge).
Here are a few articles(pre-Covid days so some of the ground reality has certainly changed) comparing REIT's and MLP's. The last link is a compare between public and private REIT's.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/reits-vs-mlps-assessing-the-better-high-yield-play-50484675
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4244108-reits-vs-mlps-which-is-better-investment REITs Vs. MLPs: Which Is The Better Investment?
https://aspenfunds.us/articles/breakdown-reits-private-reits/

I'm writing about tax code and generalities while you're presenting specific tax situations and experiences. We're simply talking at cross purposes. As we're coming from different perspectives, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. That doesn't mean I can't ramble on a little more.
I have owned publicly traded MLP's that generate K1's and they're nowhere close to the depreciation that private REIT's generate.
FWIW, here are a couple more generalities I've managed to locate. Clearly, they don't represent your experience.

Typically, 70-100% of MLP distributions have been considered a tax-deferred return of capital, which means one does not pay taxes on that portion of the distribution until the investor sells his or her position.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/understanding-the-tax-benefits-of-mlps

Each individual MLP is different, but on average an MLPs distribution is usually around 80% to 90% a return of capital, and 10% to 20% ordinary income.

https://www.suredividend.com/mlp-list/
I don't think 1031 exchanges are do-able with MLP'S
Partners cannot to 1031 exchanges, because what they own are fractions of the partnership, not the real property itself. That's owned by the partnership. So it is technically it is the partnership that must do the exchange.
Here are a couple of pages that talk about how a partnership can do an exchange:
https://www.exeterco.com/article_1031_exchange_partnership_interests
https://provident1031.com/can-an-llc-do-a-1031-exchange/
The simplest description is:

All partners can sell their existing properties together and buy a replacement property together. This is because Section 1031 mandates that the same taxpayer must do all exchanges – so a multi-member LLC can also participate so long as it doesn’t change the structure.

Typically MLPs have two tiers - (1) the MLP itself owned by the investors, and (2) the operating limited partnership (OLP) that is wholly owned by the MLP. It is the OLP that owns the actual real property.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/master-limited-partnerships-77967/
I'm not seeing how this has any effect on the ability of an OLP to do a 1031 exchange. An OLP looks like just another partnership (albeit with a single owner, the MLP). Is there anything you see in this structure that suggests an OLP cannot do a 1031 exchange?

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I am referring to LP's in a partnership as you stated.
I have owned publicly traded MLP's that generate K1's and they're nowhere close to the depreciation that private REIT's generate.
I don't think 1031 exchanges are do-able with MLP'S so can't do defer, defer, die.
I agree with your point of the passive losses of real estate not being useful to everyone but the depreciation benefit is so material that the limited utility of PAL is not relevant.
The way I see it, the fact that prior depreciation rules were more beneficial than current ones is not material because what matters is the menu of investment options available today and what provides the highest after tax $$ in your pocket. And private real estate partnerships fare well amongst the choices.
All of above of course are my views based on my tax situation, cash flow needs and risk appetite. Very rarely is there a one size fits all solution in investing so certainly someone could look at the same facts and come to the opposite conclusion.

The ability of LP's in a real estate private LLC to get the benefits of depreciation that shields most of the tax impacts of the distributions is massive.
I think you're talking about the LLC members who are not managing members. For clarity it might be simpler to call the companies partnerships, and the owners LPs and GPs. Especially since for federal tax purposes LLCs don't exist.

A Limited Liability Company (LLC) is a business structure allowed by state statute. ... Owners of an LLC are called members.
...
Depending on elections made by the LLC and the number of members, the IRS will treat an LLC as either a corporation, partnership, or [a sole proprietorship].

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc
A real estate private partnership (LLC) is able to get depreciation benefits, but so is a public partnership (LLC) such as an MLP. The key differentiator is taxation as a partnership vs. taxation as a corporation. As you wrote, getting a K1 is key.
Another lever available to LP's in real estate LLC's is the ability to pair passive losses against passive income (known as the PIGS/PAL strategy) to basically shield even more of the cash flow from taxes.
That's been available "forever". The JOBS Act did not introduce this. Rather, the limitation of writing off of passive loss against only passive income was introduced by the 1986 TRA. Prior to that, an investor could write off passive losses against active income as well as passive income.
Reiterating what I wrote before, the amount of depreciation (and thus the amount of passive loss) also used to be larger (front loaded and with shorter depreciation schedules).
Perhaps this 1986 Washington Post article will help to clarify. It is titled "Try a PIG or a PAL"

... Beginning Jan. 1, Americans who have sunk dollars into limited partnerships, rental condominiums, duplexes and other forms of real estate investment will find new restrictions on their ability to write off losses.
They will be stuck with a surfeit of unanticipated PALs, and be in dire need of some really fat PIGs.
...
The most controversial section of the 1986 tax legislation classified virtually all real estate investments [other than first and second homes] as "passive," no matter how active they may be in reality.
...
PALs, the economic and paper losses produced by so-called passive real estate, no longer can be used to offset income generated by salaries, dividends, bank accounts and other "nonpassive" income sources.
...
Many real estate-partnership investors, however, own no rental homes. But, fortunately for them, an entire new subsector of American real estate investment is rising from the ashes of tax revision.
Good old-fashioned Yankee ingenuity is creating a bumper crop of PIG partnerships -- real estate investments designed to make money passively. ... So-called master limited partnerships (MLPs) are currently in [this] category.
...
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, MLPs are bona fide limited partnerships. More than 25 MLPs, worth upwards of $ 4 billion, have either come to market since the summer or have been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Most are real estate related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/realestate/1986/12/06/try-a-pig-or-a-pal/c9364c54-3251-4477-9e07-331a3dfe8af6/
In short, looking strictly at tax rules, prior to 1987 one could front load depreciation of real estate in partnerships (or LLCs); so much so that one could have paper losses exceeding income generated. One could apply this massive paper loss against W2 income, 1099 income, etc. After TRA, one could not. This obviously made private real estate partnerships (LLC) less valuable and precipitated the crash in values that sma3 mentioned.
There was a fairly recent tax change favoring real estate, but that came in 2017 after the JOBS Act. It's the Section 199A deduction.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/qualified-business-income-deduction

I should have been more specific. The article's claim of private LLC's dying isn't true in today's world, most certainly not after the passage of the JOBS Act.
The ability of LP's in a real estate private LLC to get the benefits of depreciation that shields most of the tax impacts of the distributions is massive. I didn't fully realize the magnitude of this impact until I personally saw it on my tax returns. Easily 80%+ of cash flow is not subject to yearly tax due to depreciation and distributions from these partnerships are in general much higher than public REIT's -ranging from 6 - 12%.
Another lever available to LP's in real estate LLC's is the ability to pair passive losses against passive income (known as the PIGS/PAL strategy) to basically shield even more of the cash flow from taxes.
Investors in public REIT's do not directly get the benefits of depreciation. 1031 exchange(I have not done any) is another lever to execute a strategy colloquially referred to as defer, defer and die.
I'm not condoning the system (it is what it is, individual investors have no control on tax policy) but tax rules imo are ridiculously stacked in favor of property investors. Same applies for carried interest, a tax benefit that is today entirely disproportionate vs. the benefits to society.
The most public example of the benefits of tax rules to property investors is Trump -- New York Times has extensively covered how Trump got away(legally) with declaring massive (paper) losses on property that shielded his real cash flow income for many years(more than 15 if I recall correctly). At much smaller scales, LP's and GP's in real estate LLC's are basically doing the same thing.
Investors in Fidelity CRE would not(my guess) get the benefits of 1031 exchanges but the benefits of depreciation should flow directly to the LP's in the fund **assuming** the fund is structured similar to how private funds in general work(getting a K1 is key).
Fidelity in general as an org is a sharp cookie and they run a fairly large business as a custodian of private LLC's so they have a front row and insider view of the economics, consumer interest and ROI(to Fidelity). I'm speculating of course but I can't imagine that Fidelity is launching this fund on a whim.
EDIT
I see on the term sheet that tax reporting is 1099-DIV so what I stated above mostly won't apply to this particular fund but notwithstanding that, I stand by my other comments on the disproportionate advantages of being an LP in a real estate LLC.
I don't get what advantage accredited investors will get from this fund without a K1 that provides depreciation benefit but perhaps Fidelity's target is the mass affluent market that does not want to spend time scouring for reliable sponsors and trust in the Fidelity brand. Fidelity looks to be somewhat replicating the wildly successful BREIT fund.

I've lost tract of when that was @hank. Definitely Fund Alarm days. I think I started watching FA around 2006-7 or so so probably around that time. PMs and Asia EM were the hot sectors. Harry Brown's permanent portfolio was also talked about a lot. (rono might have called the consistent post 'asia and the metals' now that I think about it).

“Asia and the Metals “ was a morning staple on F/A. Already running when I came there sometime around 2000. But @rono may have posted it on an earlier board before F/A. Asia was a different animal geopolitically 25 years ago. Folks who then complained that Asian workers were taking away U.S. jobs now complain that the cheap items they bought at KMart / Walmart in those days cost a lot more today.
Unfortunately, I cleared out my trading records back to about 10-15 years. Otherwise I’d have a better reference to say when I first tuned in to F/A. Was around the time I moved out of American Century funds. Posted a question re that matter to which Maurice responded. (Never throw anything away.) :)

The Journal of Accountancy article from 1997 isn't relevant in today's world especially after the rise of crowdfunded CRE following the JOBS Act in the 2010's
That article discussed the alteration of tax benefits (notably pass through of losses) in 1986. Could you speak to the tax benefits that have since been restored or otherwise replaced that make the article irrelevant today?
If it's the date of the article that's bothering you, here's a 2020 Tax Foundation piece bemoaning how the TRA extended depreciation periods (MACRS) and restricted the use of declining balance depreciation.

Lessons for Today
...
Long asset lives (for example, 27.5 years for residential buildings and 39 years for nonresidential buildings) in which deductions are spread over many decades mean that companies cannot deduct anywhere near the full value of their investments in structures, as inflation and the time value of money chip away at the value of those deductions. Shortening depreciation schedules to 15 or even 20 years, roughly where they were before TRA86, would lessen the magnitude of this problem, but it would not be the ideal policy.
The current system of depreciation creates a bias against businesses that heavily invest in structures, as the effective marginal tax rates on investments in nonresidential and residential structures are much higher than those on equipment, software, and intellectual property.

https://taxfoundation.org/1980s-tax-reform-cost-recovery-and-the-real-estate-industry-lessons-for-today/
With respect to crowdfunding, that's a completely separate matter. It deals with who can invest, not how the investments are taxed. Whatever Regs A+ and CF and Rule 506(c) facilitate, they don't apply to the Fidelity offering. As stated in the Form D that yogi cited, Fidelity's offering gets its SEC exemption from Rule 506(b).

Treasury ladder doesn't have the issue of credit research needed for bond ladder.
BTW, mid/late-month is a good time to jump start T-Bill ladders when 13-wk (next 4/17/23), 26-wk (next 4/17/23), 52-wk (next 4/18/23) T-Bills are sold.
As posted elsewhere, ultra-short-term funds FCNVX, ICSH, etc may also serve as substitutes for rolling T-Bills.

Funds mentioned GSIMX, GQGIX.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1149456/a-growth-fund-without-tech-stocks
More at GQG Website https://gqgpartners.com/

Or perhaps poor management. Walmart put up with losses there for 17 years, since day one, and then gave just five days notice before shutting down the stores. Not an indication of good planning skills, and certainly not good public relations. Not to mention running afoul of federal and state laws requiring months of advance notice.
The Honolulu closing was announced a month in advance. While longer, that might also be in violation of federal law, given that the shutdown affects 169 workers there.
https://www.kitv.com/news/business/walmart-store-in-downtown-honolulu-closing-in-april/article_fd2a9b04-c83f-11ed-89da-43bbf9638632.html
The issue in Chicago is not the loss of a retailer, but of supermarkets in food deserts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-closing-chicago-stores-sparks-outrage-2023-4
While there are other nearby retailers in Honolulu (per @Crash), apparently there aren't any remaining large retailers downtown. How does this affect residents who don't drive?

Closure of last big downtown retailer, Walmart, prompts fears
First the downtown Walgreens closed about a year ago, followed six months later by the shuttering of the neighborhood Longs, and now the last major retailer, Walmart, plans to shut its doors after April 21

https://howzitkohala.com/2023/03/22/closure-of-last-big-downtown-retailer-walmart-prompts-fears/
(The full piece is from the Honolulu Star Advertiser behind a paywall.)

The Journal of Accountancy article from 1997 isn't relevant in today's world especially after the rise of crowdfunded CRE following the JOBS Act in the 2010's.
Private CRE is not the right vehicle if liquidity is paramount but the major pro is being protected from "risk off" behavior during panic in the public markers. In general(certainly not always) private CRE offers higher tax advantaged yields(due to depreciation and 1031 exchange) and higher IRR than public REIT's.

Dollar remains key for PMs.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=GDX&compare=GDXJ,UUP,GLD,SLV&id=p49896375419

@Sven and @LouisBraham - Thanks for your knowledgeable comments. I agree with you both to the point of saying that absolutist views on financial matters can be counterproductive and destructive of wealth and that they may blind one to potential opportunities. I really shouldn’t have cited what amounted to an “off-the-cuff” remark taken out of context from another forum. In that form it sheds no real light on the subject. My bad.
My intent was to augment @Old_Joe’s stated aversion to bond funds by extending his argument to an extreme absolutist viewpoint and thereby add a touch of good humor to the discussion. Anyone who reads my posts knows that I find a role for bond funds in a diversified portfolio and that I do not conform to or endorse the position a brief snipped pulled out of context elsewhere appears to support.
While we’re on the subject of bond funds: (1) One really shouldn’t throw all bond funds into one hopper and treat them the same. These vary in duration from ultra-short all the way out to long term treasuries. Credit quality and geographic location also vary greatly. (2) I suspect that some who disparage bond funds today are viewing them through a near-term distorted lens. Had you looked at performance charts prior to 2022 the 10-15 year returns would have looked much better.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 4/12/23
For the week ending on 4/12/23, neutral became the top sentiment (39.5%; above average) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (26.1%; low); bearish became the middle sentiment (34.5%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -8.4% (below average). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed; dollar; cryptos; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (59+ weeks, 2/24/22- ); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were mixed (cyclicals up, growth & tech down), bonds down, oil up, gold down, dollar down. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=9&scrollTo=1007

Vanguard charges $20 per trade for TF funds.
Investors with $1M - $5M in eligible funds can execute 25 trades gratis per calendar year.
Fidelity charges $49.95 to buy TF funds but there are no fees to sell.
It appears the $5 automatic investment option (after initial investment) at Fidelity may be available for ARDBX.
Interested parties should probably contact Fidelity to confirm this is correct.