Perhaps 80% of OEFs / ETFs are "unnecessary" and their disappearance wouldn't impact most investors.
The number of publicly listed companies has decreased significantly from the 1996 peak.
"The count of publicly listed companies traded on US exchanges has fallen substantially from its peak in 1996. Back then, the number exceeded 8,000 companies. Today that count has dropped by more than 50% to just 3700, according to data from the Center for Research in Security Prices."
"It’s not that America has half as many companies as 30 years ago – it’s that companies are increasingly staying private, largely outside the scrutiny of the public eye. Publicly listed companies are subject to regulatory oversight and disclosure requirements, which help ensure transparency and maintain investor confidence. With fewer companies listed, there may be a decrease in overall transparency and investor trust in the market, said Matthew Kennedy, head of data and content at Renaissance Capital."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

I swapped out VHCOX for FPURX. I've held Capital Opportunity for over 20 years, but it just seems to have lost its edge (Similar to why I sold out of POAGX earlier in the year). I think in the current environment FPURX will provide a steadier ride over the next 2 years. At this stage in my investing life steady is good.

I'm not sure a heavy LCG is super prudent but its understandable why someone wants it. Return isn't everything but I'm kind of the mind that if people are tilting LCG its largely return related. therefore prefer a LCG index compared to products like contrafund or whatever bluechip fund you chuck at it. But all in all this could be a worse portfolio.
Diversification: I would probably suggest barbelling your LCG tilt with something small/mid cappy and maybe a bit more value'y. And I do believe most should have a smattering of international investing in their portfolio. Only because we don't know the future.
Growth Potential: There are a few gotcha's here. continued mutual fund management over long periods of time is like chasing unicorns around. Sure we have documented success stories but a few things are real. 1. People age/philosophies change and 2. the black swan event of tomorrow will require different decisions than the BS events of yesteryear.
The other Gotcha here is "what to do in the next 5-10 years" way of thinking. These are the types of strategies that most often lead one to underperformance. I believe it was Oshaunnessy who said the best portfolios at Fidelity are the ones that people forgot existed or the owners were dead. Build a portfolio today that you feel can last a very long time. obviously circumstances change and decisions will have to be made here or there but don't go into an investment because "this is how i think the next decade will look" . Some people succeed at this but most do not.
Risk Control: If you want returns you are going to have to take risks. Can we control risk with the types of stocks we pick or how many we pick? yeah probably. Nothing is set in stone and there are ebbs in flows but the easiest way to control Risk in equities is diversification.
Costs and Fees:
per morningstar as it pertains to large cap equities, 18% of active funds that are in the lower half of expenses outperformed their index over a 10 year period. only 6% of the more expensive ones could say they did. So expenses do matter. Now that study isn't perfect. if .50 is placed in the cheaper half and .51 is considered the more expensive half it doesn't give us all that info but its gives us a snapshot that costs do matter. Once again also noting that returns aren't always all that matters (while also noting observably in most other places, it is all that matters to the avg investor)

@mskursh.
"... the surviving focus/select funds that exist today or have long track records are standing on the corpses of many that have gone extinct..."
ouch.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" is a metaphor I've embraced for years.
But corpses?
Never heard that before.
But maybe I should have.

not really a saying (I don't think) just something I typed as it came to me. what I find fascinating is that the industry does a fantastic job of making it seem like the mutual funds that are dead never existed in the first place.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

+1
It’s difficult to draw a line in the sand (or concrete). But if you’re under 40, dollar-cost averaging in and planning to work at least 20 more years … put it in a good low cost growth fund and let it rip. No more than 3 funds I’d say. You can withstand the +35% and -35% market whipsaws with that kind of time horizon.
I get the feeling from our friend @Joyes that his situation is different - probably an older investor.

Not sure it's nuts going forward...looking backwards sure after the fact I could see your point... you're not getting mine.. it's that if the less experienced or younger investor sees a drawdown that has legs they will bail and lose the compounding effect.
Compounding positive returns is what creates wealth.
While we're dancing and seeing how most of us are old enough to collect social security..what day you about a younger investor allocating say 10 to 20% to Bitcoin?
Note that many younger investors are much more open to the concept. I guess you could argue it's done a better job keeping up with inflation the last couple of years

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

Thank you for the summary, @Observant1. In more recent years, we found ourselves using more ETFs (mainly passive funds). The new active managed stocks and bonds are attractive vehicles with lower expensive ratios without minimum investment, and we have added them too.

Until @Joyes replies to the MFO board's inquiry, we are all guessing.

True. There is a big difference between being 25 years old and 75 or 80 in investing posture. Sounds like @Joyes has little experience. Maybe he / she is quite young and new at the process. Or possibly an older individual seeking to invest a recent windfall like an inheritance or cash-out from an employer.
@BaseballFan - One guru I actually pay for monthly market analysis has had his readers at 58% equity and 42% T-Bills most of the year. I don't want to say who because it would violate my terms of use. But obviously that call has not been optimum YTD. Yet ISTM it’s hard to criticize someone wanting to make 5%+ in cash instruments. I recently upped my allocation to 44% equity from 37% when an opportunity came along. But like you I remain cautious.
If the FOMC should cut rates next week I think it would juice the markets. Most of the experts don’t expect a cut that soon. But my view is more sanguine.

what no one has mentioned yet is what kind of career track/profession is @joyes in?
If they are a physician, plumber, electrician etc..their work path is more "somewhat guaranteed in the future" so they might be more aggressive in their portfolio. If they are a real estate agent, programmer, where their future earnings might be lumpy or impacted negatively by AI, they might consider being way less aggressive in their portfolio.
I have personally worked with many young(er) colleagues, many starting out their careers, in their early to mid-20's and have found without a doubt (and I am more certain of this as anything I have ever posted on this site, political views included (Ha!) as I've seen it first hand many times) is that if you suggest to them "oh, you are young and have many years to invest, be aggressive, 90-100% in stocks", at the first draw down of over 15% they will bail and go all to cash. To someone without a lot of money, $20k going down to $13k is not something they are going to just watch happen.
Therefore, my suggestion for consideration and NOT ADVICE, would be to stay 50/50 in cash/Tbills and the other half in something like FPACX FPA Crescent..a fund that has been around a long time and is not super aggressive.
Don't gamble, don't overdo the booze, stay away from the floozies/bar flies, go home after work, don't go to the bars, stay fit, think for yourself, don't smoke, save at least 15% of your paycheck every pay day, don't care what others think or post on social media.
Good Luck and Good Health to ALL,
Baseball Fan

FD said, “… in the last 10 years.”
To quote Regan, ”There you go again!”

dunno who Regan is, but is anything FD1k said untrue? BND sucks and has sucked majorly.
never bought the notion of diversification past a point.
an old and very tired argument. details, as he says.

@Joyes
One of the most helpful things I encountered when beginning an investment journey was to purchase and devour materials which covered aspects considered helpful for new investors as well as more seasoned folks with more capital. Upon graduation from college, my parents purchased for me a subscription to Kiplinger. I still have that subscription some 45 years later. Many sample portfolios are included in the magazine as well.
Barron's was mentioned previously, but I'd suggest Kiplinger for someone starting out. It's a great tool for learning and becoming familiar with investments.

FD said, “… in the last 10 years.”
To quote Regan Reagan, ”There you go again!”

Diversification by itself is too generic, which is why I made my point.
So again, if you are diversifying in just RE, stocks, CEFs, commodities. They are not guaranteed to be better than SPY.
I remember so many posters quoting Merriman, saying your stocks must be diversified, just to come short in the last 15 years.
The next 10 years can be different than the last. I don't care what happened 50 years ago; I only care what the next years will do.
Basically, diversification is just a buzzword; the devil is in the details.
Example: If you invested in one of the most recommended bond funds, the US total bond index, VBTLX=BND, it made 1.5% annually in the last 10 years. The performance matches MM with no volatility, see (chart). BND has been a pretty bad choice, IMO.

FD - You misread my sentence. I said ”after 40-50 years”. PRWCX did not even exist 50 years ago.. David Giroux was 1 year old at the time.
Diversification means having different asset types - like stocks, real estate, bonds, cash, commodities, precious metals and non-dollar currencies
Diversification also includes investment styles like growth, value, momentum, technical based, risk-premia, market neutral, long-short, options based, and several others.
Diversification also includes geographic area (ie domestic, international, regional).
Diversification also includes instrument type like OEFs, CEFs, ETFs, stocks, bonds, collectables, hard assets.
Within bonds or bond funds diversification means owning a range of credit quality (from AAA down to C-). It also includes a variety of years-to-maturity & duration.
How can you say that a combination of several of the above (pick 6-8) over 50 years would have beaten the S&P or would have presented a higher overall year-to-year risk profile?

@hank

Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.

The above is a myth. All you have to do is see the performance in the last 15 years of SPY compared to SPY+IWN+EEM or compared to PRWCX. Both PRWCX+SPY have better performance and lower volatility = higher Sharpe ratio. When US LC doing well it's difficult to beat them.
See results (link).

Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.

You have just proved my point. Did diversification in other stock categories help you?
The only true diversification is thru bonds, but again, it depends on the holdings.

“… tips on how to diversify my holdings in order to increase my portfolio over time.”
Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.
But, is the above realistic?
Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.
How would you react 10-12 months into the above saga with your portfolio down 35% from the previous year’s peak and the media ablaze with horror takes of loss and predictions of doom?
By a strange quirk of math, the % gain needed to get back to “break-even” is greater than the % lost. If your portfolio falls by 25% in one year you’ll need a 33% gain the following year to get back to break-even. If you lose 50% of your portfolio you’ll need a 100% return to get back to your old level.
Just food for thought.
All the recommendations in this thread are excellent. Putting a portfolio together is a very personal thing. No “one-size” fits all. My only “tip” would be to become a regular Barron’s reader. No single publication has done more to help me invest over the past 50 years. It’s not glamorous. It’s not really about mutual funds. And the articles are anything but consistent. You’ll read “bulls” and “bears” in the same issue. But it will get you thinking about money … money and risk.
Added Thought …
I like looking at model portfolios. T Rowe Price is noted for being a good asset allocator.
This LINK will take you to one of their web pages and a discussion of allocation, complete with pie charts. I have one minor gripe. That is they don’t include commodities in these sketches. While they can sometimes jump up and bite you, I think having 2%-5% in commodities / precious metals is a pretty good idea.

So going back 30 or so years there were a bunch of investors called the turtle traders...one guru guy trained them up as CTAs... they all made a bunch of money
Some say they were just at the right place at the right time... commodity up cycle...trend following then hit a flat spot for quite a while
Maybe good place to be during stagflation cycle?
Trading currencies is tough, not that I would know but governments can flip the card table on you at any time
My thoughts re BLNDX...is I am passing on it as long as I can get 5%plus in tbills...why get greedy and screw around with the black box stuff?

I view BLNDX as a commodities long-short fund. Manager provides great monthly commentary on his thinking. I owned it many years back but sold off all my position because I found better candidates for what I was looking for in a LS fund.
That said, all trend follower funds work till they don't.

Hello Everyone,
I'm new to the globe of mutual fund investing, so I'm looking for tips on how to diversify my holdings in order to increase my portfolio over time. My portfolio is now made up of a combination of bond and equity funds, but I want to make sure that my approach is sound and situated for future returns.
This is a quick look at everything I currently own:
Mutual Funds for Equity:
Bond funds: T. Rowe Prices Blue Chip Growth Funds (TRBCX), Financing Contrafund (FCNTX), Vanguard 500 Index Funds (VFIAX), and
PIMCO Income Funds (PONAX) and Vanguard Total Bonds Market Index Funds (VBTLX)
I would much appreciate your insights on the following few questions I have:
Diversification: Do my bond and stock holdings exhibit sufficient diversity? Do you suggest adding any particular industries or fund kinds (international, small-cap, sector-specific) to attain greater diversification?
Growth Potential: Do you think certain mutual funds or investment strategies have particularly significant potential for growth over the next five to ten years, given the state of the market? Funds with a solid track record of success and reputed fund managers catch my attention in particular.
Risk Control: In what ways do you control risk in the mutual fund holdings? Do you employ any specific funds or different asset classes as a hedge against future market downturns?
Costs and Fees: When choosing mutual funds, how significant are cost ratios and mlops fees? What are some recommendations for locating affordable, high-quality funds?
I appreciate your assistance in advance! I'm excited to hone my investing strategy for greater long-term rewards and to gain from the collective wisdom of this group.