FWIW: For the past week or so the great preponderance of financial news in the Business Section of the WSJ have been negative. Major layoffs, store closings, poor performance, failure to meet analyst expectations, bankruptcies.
Just sayin'...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709364/000094937724000109/trf-497.htm
97 1 trf-497.htm
The Royce Fund
Supplement to the Investment, Service, and Institutional Class Shares Prospectus Dated May 1, 2024
Royce Global Financial Services Fund
The Royce Fund’s Board of Trustees approved a plan of liquidation for Royce Global Financial Services Fund, to be effective on September 9, 2024. The Fund is being liquidated primarily because it has not maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable. As of the close of business on July 16, 2024, the Fund was no longer offering its shares for purchase and was not accepting any investments in the Fund.
August 1, 2024
RFS-CLOSE

Thanks for the heads-up @Mitchelg
Not really understanding options very well I dug up some information from the fund’s prospectus and also about ELNs from another source. Possibly this may prove helpful for other ”Options Dummies” like myself.
About RSPA
”The portfolio managers seek to construct the options-based income component of the Fund’s portfolio by investing in high-income, short-term ELNs with a focus on downside protection. The ELNs in which the Fund seeks to invest are hybrid derivative-type instruments that are specially designed to combine the characteristics of investing in one or more underlying equity securities or an index of equity securities and a related equity derivative, such as a put or call option (or a combination thereof), in a single note form (typically senior, unsecured debt) issued by financial institutions. The options within the ELNs in which the Fund invests will be based on the Index or on ETFs that replicate the Index, and such options will generally have covered call and/or cash secured put strategies embedded within them. When the Fund purchases an ELN from the issuing counterparty, the Fund is generally entitled to receive a premium generated by options positions within the ELN. Therefore, the ELNs are intended to provide recurring cash flow to the Fund based on the premiums received from selling the options.
“Selling a call option entitles the seller to a premium equal to the value of the option at the time of trade. When the Fund sells call options within an ELN, it receives a premium but limits its opportunity to profit from an increase in the market value of either the underlying benchmark or ETF to the exercise price of the call option (plus the premium received). The maximum potential gain on the call option embedded within the ELN will be equal to the difference between the exercise price of the option and the purchase price of the underlying benchmark or ETF at the time the option is written, plus the premium received. Accordingly, because these premiums can partially offset losses incurred by the Fund's equity portfolio, the Fund's investments in ELNs may reduce the Fund's volatility relative to the Index, while providing limited downside protection against declines in the value of the Fund's equity portfolio.”
Prospectus
About ELNs
”An Equity-Linked Note (ELN) is a debt instrument, usually a bond, where the payout is based on the underlying entity. The underlying equity of the ELN can be a collection of stocks, a single stock or an equity index. A typical ELN is usually principal-protected meaning that the investor is guaranteed the return of the initial investment, but as ELNs have become more exotic in nature, fewer ELNs are principal protected.
“Generally, the final payment is the amount invested times the gain in the underlying stock or index times a note specific participation rate. For example, if the underlying equity gains 150% during the investment period and the participation rate is 50%, the investor would receive $2.25 for every dollar invested. If the equity remains unchanged or declines, the investor receives the full investment back. However, if the underlying equity defaults, the investor will receive only what is available after bankruptcy.
“Investors should understand everything they can about the underlying equity because what may seem like a safe investment may fail. For example, in 2008 equity-linked notes tied to equity in Lehman Brothers failed. Many investors sued the broker-dealers for promising 100% principal protection and still losing money.”
Source

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.

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?

@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.

Empower Personal Dashboard is a browser app, there is nothing to download to PC or Mac. It also has decent Android and iOS versions (I use both but the mobile apps are not full equivalents of browser)
https://www.empower.com/personal-investors/financial-tools
https://www.empower.com/signup-v1
If one is not going to use the account aggregation feature and use it in 100% manual mode, makes sense to remain anonymous but keep in mind that Empower requires 2FA so you can't be 100% anonymous with a disposable e-mail address (unless you have a throw-away mobile number of course!)

Thank you, @StayCalm. I started with M* portfolio tracking and I manually update my changes. Does Empower allow manual tracking? I am a bit hesitant to give one service provider access to all my financial accounts for them to pull info into one place. I wish someone who tried both M* and Empower would comment which one is better for portfolio tracking. M* does suffer from the occasional end of day stale prices (updates).

On the topic, Empower dashboard has definitely deteriorated from a stability perspective after Personal Capital was sold to Empower.
I poked around with a few competitors in order to move on but unfortunately had to return back to Empower because it is still the best imo. It is an outstanding tool for free, I would happily pay a reasonable annual subscription fee for a better product.
How do folks here track financial footprint, net worth and allocations? For me personally, pulling everything into a spreadsheet will not work.

@Graust- Yes sir, thank you very much. Overtly political rants have absolutely no place in the financial sections of MFO. The Off-Topic arena is the proper place for that sort of thing... a concept that only one or two posters seem to have a problem understanding.
Baseball would be a complete mess if a few players were allowed to frequently ignore the rules and act out whenever they wanted to. It's ironic that that someone who professes to appreciate a rules-based contest feels free to ignore the rules and act out whenever he feels like it here on MFO.

@BaluBalu. The Invesco site is a bit thin on explaining methodology. However, the fund’s universe is the S&P Mid Cap 400, from which are chosen semi-annually some 80 stocks that exhibit characteristics of “momentum,” or rising prices. Not terribly surprising.
Overlap with XMHQ is 52%, quite a lot. Thanks to @WABAC for reminding me to check ETFRC. Applying rules twice a year obviously does not require a lot of attention. Still, I wonder how that process results in a T.O. ratio of 132.
https://www.invesco.com/us/financial-products/etfs/product-detail?audienceType=Investor&ticker=XMMO

@Dennis Baran, thanks again for not only your reply but also soliciting a reply from a principal at the fund company. Very helpful.
@BaluBalu... getting back to you with my reply... I've made it clear in prior threads that I'm extremely risk averse... I do have substantial financial assets ( 8 figures) and am not looking to get greedy. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that the markets have been juiced by insane fiscal and monetary inputs as well as the somewhat ponzi structure of it due to index fund flows and stock options issuance as well as buy backs. Not sure.
So I'm on the look out for what some have recently described as boomer candy. Exposure to markets but with a shock absorber approach that might mitigate a severe downturn in the markets.
PHEFX t Rowe hedged equity is one fund mentioned prior but I also believe that VELIX likely is a very good candidate. I also really like that you have a veteran running the fund along with a still experienced and well educated co manager who is younger also at the helm.
VELA will see some of my investment monies in the near future... I'll be phasing in slowly over the next several months.
Thanks again,
Baseball fan

“Morningstar's John Rekenthaler starts with a simple but unusual observation that if 2 assets have the same long-term (LT) TR, then rebalancing will definitely benefit the TR." In all other cases, rebalancing hurts TR, but does control risk.”

Absolutely. Good distinction to make. To myself, and from what I’ve seen over the years, it’s the second reason that receives more of the attention - especially from the financial press. . Every now and than when equity markets appear frothy you’ll get this suggestion to rebalance as part of a lengthier piece on cutting risk, dealing with high equity valuations, planning for the future or some other broader topic. Not new in that sense.
Rekenthaler goes a step farther and dissects the idea into the 2 categories @yogibearbull observes. Good article. Thanks to @bee and Yogi for posting. Great minds think alike.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1342947/000121390024062820/ea0209708-01_497.htm
497 1 ea0209708-01_497.htm 497
BBH TRUST
BBH PARTNER FUND – SMALL CAP EQUITY
(BBHSX)
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 19, 2024 TO THE
PROSPECTUS
AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2024
The following information supplements, and, to the extent inconsistent therewith, supersedes, certain information in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms used in this supplement have the same meaning as defined in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
I. FUND LIQUIDATION
On July 19, 2024, the Board of Trustees of BBH Trust (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation for the BBH Partner Fund – Small Cap Equity (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about the earlier of (i) September 30, 2024 and (ii) the date in which all shareholders have redeemed their respective shares in the Fund (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholder approval of the Liquidation is not required.
Beginning on July 19, 2024 through the Liquidation Date, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and policies as it liquidates holdings in preparation for the distribution of assets to investors. During this time, the Fund may hold more cash or cash equivalents than normal, which may prevent the Fund from meeting its stated investment objective. Shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date will receive their proportionate interest in all of the net assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all the outstanding shares of the Fund. Payment will be made in accordance with instructions from each shareholder. If a shareholder has not provided instructions by the time proceeds are distributed, that shareholder’s liquidation proceeds shall be distributed based on the payment instructions on file for such shareholder with the Fund’s Transfer Agent. For those accounts with no bank instructions on file with the Fund’s Transfer Agent, the Transfer Agent shall issue a check. If required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Fund will make an income distribution prior to the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus prior to the Liquidation Date.
If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction by the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed on the Liquidation Date, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding.
The Adviser will bear all expenses of the Liquidation to the extent such expenses are not part of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and operating expenses. However, the Fund and its shareholders will bear transaction costs and any potential tax consequences associated with turnover of the Fund’s portfolio.
The liquidation of the Fund, like any redemption of Fund shares, will constitute an event upon which a gain or loss may be recognized for state and federal income tax purposes, depending on the type of account and the adjusted cost basis of the investor’s shares. The tax year for the Fund will end on the Liquidation Date. Please contact your tax advisor to discuss the tax consequences to you of the liquidation.
II. CLOSURE OF THE FUND TO PURCHASES
Effective as of the close of business on July 19, 2024, the Fund will be closed to purchases of Fund shares, however, the Fund’s closure to purchases of Fund shares does not restrict any shareholders from redeeming shares of the Fund.
The Fund’s ability to enforce the closure of the Fund to purchases with respect to certain retirement plan accounts and accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on systems capabilities, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those retirement plans and intermediaries.
Please contact the Fund at 1-800-575-1265 if you have any questions.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Ok, I got it.
MM pays now 5+% but for years it pays under 1%. A couple of year from now it will be much lower. I can always find pretty good risk/reward bond funds but that's my specialty.
Logins at 4 weeks interval and not interested too much tell me Fidelity is better for you.
How can $250K sit idle? Suppose I sell 1 million and buy $950K(5% less than a million) it's only $50K. To have $250K sitting idle means you sold $5 million. I'm a stickler in that dept, if I see $100 left, I invest it.
Taking care of my money and logging in 10 minutes 2-3 times per week is worth it. I always check all my other financial institution sites too. IMO, It's a must in the digital world to protect and verify your assets.
I only invest in funds/ETFs, very rarely, I trade leveraged CEFs for hours/days when I see a good trade, like 2020, or 2022.
What does someone pay for RIA services?

Beware of nonbank fintech apps promising good yields.
What did these people think they were getting from Yotta that they couldn't get from an actual bank?
It turns out that there's a lot to unpack here. I had not taken a look directly at Yotta. Not surprisingly, it's a "gamified" site designed to attract young customers. But surprising (at least to me) is its banking arrangement.
Unless I'm missing something, it pays just a 0.10% base rate. Though because it offers chances of winning money, its effective average rate is closer to 2.5% depending on where/when you read figures. So what one gets is the thrill of the chase in addition to (on average) a halfway decent rate of interest.
Further, it looks like a customer's agreement is directly with Evolve Bank (and perhaps Synapse), not with Yotta. So technically, the customers may in fact be getting their services from an actual bank after all!
Here's the sample customer agreement. It starts:

Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. (“Synapse”) is providing this Agreement to you on behalf of Bank. ...
This Consumer Interest Checking Account Agreement (this “Agreement”) governs the interest-bearing consumer demand account (the “Account” or “Interest Checking Account”) made available to you by Evolve Bank & Trust (“Bank”), [member FDIC] in partnership with Synapse, as a technology service provider of Bank. ... Access ... is available only through ... Yotta.

As to watching out for nonbank fintech apps promising good yields - Yotta's promised yield is okay but not great. In contrast, Raisin (formerly SaveBetter) appears to be a well established fintech though which one can get better rates from specific banks than one would get by going directly to those banks. Much as one can sometimes get better CD rates from a bank by going through a broker than going directly to the bank.
I agree that caution is warranted, as it is for any financial investment. But there doesn't seem to be any substantial additional risk in using Raisin rather than going directly to the banks it works with. While I haven't used it, it looks like a good source of no-penalty CDs.
Raisin review - Business Insider
Top savings rates (with several Raisin arrangements) - Deposit Accounts

• Largest Catholic mutual fund family in the U.S.


• Diverse group of six funds that enable investors to align financial goals with moral beliefs


• Value investors utilizing proprietary criteria to screen out companies that promote or support activities contrary to the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church


• Place equal emphasis on investment performance and moral criteria in selecting securities


• Serve institutional and individual investors


• Advised by Schwartz Investment Counsel, Inc., a registered investment adviser established in 1980


• Professional portfolio managers and analysts average over 20 years of investment experience


• 100% no-load mutual fund family

I believe RCMFX is actually secular, but same advisor.

stayCalm

That said Fidelity and Vanguard imo are still better imo because one is not forced to manually enter a 2nd MMF trade for every single buy/sell.

Most should don't trade, and most shouldn't own MM.
This is such a small thing, no need to worry about, even if you didn't do the second buy, the yearly difference is meaningless.
You still need to look at the TOTALs.
Vanguard? no thank you, bad servicess.
Fidelity? sure. But, as I said, waving commissions is probably about $2K for me. The ability to invest 99% on day one when I switch funds at Schwab can generate another $K
These are all peanuts.

Regards your Catch 22 comment

I made a generic comment not related to you. All I can tell you is that I met probably at least with 30-40 financial advisors, and I wasn't impressed. Most are just salespeople who repeat what is fed to them.
Most are not real fiduciaries, even if their title says so. A good one should assess your goals in a couple of hours, set a plan for years to come, and only make changes at pivotal points.
They also should put you in up to 5-7 funds, at least half indexes, it's not a brain surgery.
That means charging you maybe $1000-1500 first time and nothing for years, hardly any of them will do it. Fiduciaries should look at their clients interests, not charge them every year, and never by the size of their portfolios.
Good luck.

Thanks for chiming in @BaluBalu. I was a little uncertain myself to what post of mine @Graust referred. I’ve strived to stay away from politics on the investing side, but do engage in politics a bit in the off-topic section. Always, we should endeavor to remain civil whether here or over in off-topic. I think yours is a noble attempt to discuss the Bloomberg Businessweek content absent political bickering. Good luck!
@Graust is a longtime “regular”. He may not make a lot of comments, but they are always substantive based on an obvious deep knowledge of financial matters. He has helped me on countless occasions over the years. I am grateful.