https://www.morningstar.com/content/morningstarcom/en_us/model-portfolios.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
dir of personal finance at M*, for some years

Thanks @davidmoran
Who employs her? (some company or agency, wealthy individuals directly, financial planners)?
40 years is a long time. If she’s wrong, you wouldn’t know for a long time. I suppose it doesn’t matter because there’s probably no legal accountability anyway.
3 years (advertised by some here) doesn’t serm very meaningful to me. In a 40 year span (first investment to time of drawdown) a 3 year streak (positive or negative) would appear trivial.

My earlier goof. Glanced at the thread on the way out the door and assumed “Christine” was a newbie here seeking advice. Didn’t realize she’s actually a journalist spewing out model portfolios. I’d be very careful criticizing the investment choices of any one individual. Only they really understand their situation and temperament.
But if folks find it either instructive or amusing to argue about model portfolios that’s fine for me. Go for it. Few of us will be here in 40 years to judge who had it right. I used to look at them for ideas 20-30 years back seeking to chart my own course. Little value or interest now to someone like me (and many others here) who’ve been at this for the past 50 years of their life. Indeed, most of the TRP funds being touted here didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
Regards

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future results."
We'll check back in 40 years to see who had the better long term portfolio. :-)

FYI: (Christine Benz's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX)
15%: T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
10%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
10%: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)
35%: T. Rowe Price Overseas Stock
5%: T. Rowe Price New Income (PRCIX)
5%: T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 11.93
( The Linkster's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
20% T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
20% T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX)
20% T.Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)
20% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 19.82
The Entire Article:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880485/how-our-t-rowe-price-retirement-saver-portfolios-h.html

Along with others here, I have a "healthy" dose of health care in my active portfolio. CELG has been on a roller coaster, but my basis is so low as to make a sale unpalatable, even when it dropped. Also hold HQL, which has underperformed in recent years. I contacted the PM to express my concern and received no reply. I cannot complain about the 8% distribution plan of this CEF, but I didn't buy it to fill the role of an equity-income fund. Looking for something else and VHT figures in my thinking, along with a fund to capture the biotech sector.

Mike W - msf has it right of course (as regards money market funds)
1 or 2 ran into trouble in years past. But that was before the SEC-mandated reforms that were imposed within the past decade. One that lost money (several decades ago) was of the institutional variety serving large corporate customers - if memory serves. So even than consumers didn’t lose money. But it was common for some firms to play a bit “fast and loose” with ratings on the paper their mm funds held. Also, back than some went out too long on duration and got into trouble when rates moved the wrong way.
Sure - Theoretically, even a government money market fund could experience losses. But under such a scenario, we’d all have much more serious issues to think about aside from losing a few cents on the dollar in our government money market fund.

As @Ted and I agree with tech. and health exposure.
My particular watch for these two areas is that in the event of a major equity correction; these 2 sectors, as well as the other high fliers in growth will be some of the areas to get picked on the most for profit taking. The big money will come out of the best return areas over the past several years, yes? I'm not concerned at this time; just my open thought here.
Also, dependent upon one's available choices at their vendor; one can decide whether to have broad exposure to health or more narrow sectors. Review the holdings and performance carefully.
Health and tech. are two sectors where I don't regard expense ratios as a particular "evil". I'll guess the average ER for a managed fund is .7%. One can pay this much, too; for a passive managed etf.
Also note that one may already have 15% - 30% exposure to these 2 sectors via an equity growth fund or more broad based equity fund. Perhaps this is your comfort level.
---EXAMPLE: ITOT, I-shares, U.S. equity, broad
--- info tech. = 25%
--- health = 14%
--- finance = 14%
--- telecom = 1.8%
I've not looked deeper into all holdings with this etf; but included finance and telecom; as there may be additional tech. related inside these areas, too.
Note: To the etf list below, an OMG moment. The current best performance from this list is both a small cap and health, too. A great place to be this year, at this point in time; at least from the year's beginning.
In addition to Ted's active fund list, is this list for 47 health related etfs. I set this link with YTD return, but not sure how it will load here or for your use.
Do your homework in the healthcare sector and good fortune, as there are lots of choices.
We remain 50% of total equity exposure with health and tech.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: ( Last week catch22 linked an article,https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-15-us-companies-that-are-investing-the-most-in-tomorrows-big-ideas-2018-08-23/print, about how much large pharma companies were spending on R&D. It got me rethinking my asset allocation in healthcare. I held PRHSX for many years, but sold it during the 2016 health sector downturn. I have held PFE since 2006 and have done very well. Tomorrow I will retake a position in PRHSX.)
If you’re looking for that healthy glow, look no further than health care.
That might be hard to imagine, given the sector’s earlier travails. Through May 8, it had dropped 2.4% even as the S&P 500 advanced 0.6%, with the market fretting about the political pressures being brought to bear on drug prices, among other issues.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-health-cares-rally-may-be-just-getting-started-1535153121
List Of Health Care Funds:
http://mutualfunds.com/themes/health-biotech-equity-funds/

FYI: It might seem odd to open a retirement account for a high school student.
But teenagers can get a big head start on long-term savings, financial advisers say, by stashing some of their earnings in a Roth individual retirement account.
Now is a good time to talk with teenagers about long-term savings using a Roth I.R.A. because they may have earned money from summer jobs, said Patricia A. Seaman, a spokeswoman for the National Endowment for Financial Education, a nonprofit organization that promotes financial literacy.
Teenagers can benefit from tax-free growth of investments in a Roth account years before they have the opportunity to contribute to a workplace retirement plan, Ms. Seaman said. And five decades of growth allows plenty of time to ride out market swings.
“The earlier you start,” Ms. Seaman said, “the more the time value of money works for you.”
A Roth I.R.A. for someone under 18 must be opened and managed by an adult custodian, like a parent or grandparent. The teenager must have earned income, whether from a formal job or from gigs like babysitting and lawn mowing. Children can contribute their total annual earnings up to $5,500.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/your-money/roth-ira-retirement-teenagers.html

Hi @bee, My portfolio is comprised through many years of investing and there are guidelines in place but no hard rules. For instance, the two largest fund holdings are also my oldest at about six percent each (FKINX & AMECX). I decided ... enough is enough ... and, I don't want to keep expanding these two funds so I split some off and open other funds with these being my seed funds for the others. With new money, some gift and inheritance transfers, and taking what the existing funds generated I built what you see. With this I'm thinking new positions to complement the core. Also, a good amount of what you see is also held in taxable accounts. So, I have to consider the tax angle as well.
An exapmle. Currently, NEWFX is the largest position in it's sleeve so I'm thinking of splitting some of it into another fund (DWGAX) through a nav exchange process. This will rebalace NEWFX's sleeve while adding some diverfication to the sleeve that will hold DWGAX. As you can see I have another fund under review for a nav exchange buy (INUTX). So, this is an on going process and done when I felt warranted. Again, gudelines but no hard rules. Generally, no fund starts at less than 5% of its sleeve and becomes no more than 60%. For instance AOFAX is currently 15% of its sleeve, NDVAX 15% and PMDAX 70%. When AOFAX gets built AOFAX is tatgeted to become 20%, NDVAX 20% & PMDAX 60%. PMDAX is held in a taxable account and has been a long term position and through the years of growth become an outsized position within its sleeve. The strategy is not to sell any of PMDAX but to grow the other positions to balance the sleeve with some more buys and natural growth as they should grow faster than PMDAX.
That is why it is important to Xray what you have before starting to tweak.
The below outlines the process and was not posted with the portfolio. Again, no hard rules just guidelines about my sleeve management system.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better help manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five slleves ... a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picutre of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix. The matrix is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place.
See the portfolio for asset allocation ranges for each area. Sleeve and fund weightings are known but not listed.

I'm thinking like some others that have expressed their thoughts that a good balanced fund over time will do just as well if not better than advertised bear market funds. I charted American Funds ABALX against a couple of them using BEARX & PSSAX and over a full market cycle of ten years it was the better performer. In fact over this ten year period the two bear market funds that I used actually had negative returns while ABALX was up better than an average of eight percent per year for the period. Being mostly a long term investor who at times trades around the edges this is important to me being able to keep positions for the long term.
So, with the market being at all time highs with some saying a major pull back might be coming I'm staying with my hybrid funds and will not be moving into bear market funds. Should some ballast be needed in my portfolio during a market down draft I'll raise cash by reducing my exposure in some of my equity funds.

@bee, great stuff on max drawdown and recovery time. I'm a believer in having a cash bucket in retirement to ride out a recession. I've thought 3-4 years expenses would be good, but you are using actual data that suggests 2 years expenses in a cash bucket is likely sufficient. More real data that suggests bear market funds are not needed or even detrimental to a portfolio.

I have owned this fund for several years as my main large cap growth fund (I own institutional share class PGFIX). I am surprised and pleased to see an article written about it, as this fund gets no attention. I would call it somewhere between an above average to a very good fund, but not the level of a "great" fund. I have been pleased with it and will continue to hold.
Thanks for the link.

I own ETIHX which I purchased at a bad time in 2015, right before the bio's dipped. I was going to sell, but didn't. Now I'm up 50%. With a relatively concentrated position of 70 or so stocks, they look to be good analysts in this space.
No leverage, but it does go into small bio's and is definitely a "risk-on" trade. Paring this with a combination of VGHCX could make a reasonable barbell position in healthcare as relates to risk. When the overall market takes a dive in the next 2 years or so, I'll be adding to this fund to make it a full position. Not for the squeamish though.
FWIW, I agree with the comments above on leverage. I make enough bad decisions without magnifying them.

@Hank, what alternative funds are you invested in? Were they around in 2008-early 9 for the great recession so that they have a performance tract record during the worst of economic times? Just curious how they performed over that stretch compared to a conservative balanced fund. Again, just my opinion, but alternative funds offer nothing that a good equity/bond balanced fund can offer, including safe-guarding your down side risk in retirement. Compare your alternatives for risk-return to a couple pretty conservative balanced funds like GLRBX or BERIX. These 2 funds lost only 5.5 and 10.2% in 2008 respectively, while averaging returns over the last 10 years of close to 6 and 7%.
Not trying to change your mind or comfort zone, just saying, in my opinion alternative is more a marketing gimmick than a useful portfolio add at any stage of life. Bear market funds being the worst choice of the group.

@catch22: you said, "protection of assets from the "nasties". We've gone almost nine and a half years without the nasties, and I for one am not going to look over my shoulder for them because their no where in sight !
Regards,
Ted
P.S. I have 000,000 in MVRXX earning 1.83%

Hi Folks - I’m willing to allocate a small amount to alternative funds in the current exuberant market (currently 10%). And an even smaller amount to a gold fund (1-2%), which is another form of alternative investment. But please understand (1) I’m deep into the retirement / draw-down years and (2) I probably have accumulated enough $$ to last my remaining lifetime.
What some don’t grasp is that at a very advanced age it takes just 1 devastating year to wipe out 25-50% of one’s lifetime savings. While (as many like to point out) the odds of such an event are relatively small (you odds-makers can calculate the likelihood), if it happens to someone 75 or older it’s unlikely they’ll recover that sum in their lifetime. So you need to understand that some old farts here are being extra cautious in the prevailing climate. Going to all-cash doesn’t sound like any fun. And I think one can still pull 2, 3 or even 4% a year better than a money market or CD over shorter periods - even conservatively positioned. As I’ve often pointed out, those under 60 (and @Ted still thinks he is) probably should be investing in good plain vanilla low-fee growth funds.
The funds in JohnN’s post appear to be bear market funds. That’s 1 type of alternative - but by no means the entire domain. And a bear-fund to me is suicidal unless you really can foresee the future. Hussman is the best advertisement for an alternative fund which attempted to foresee the future and fell into the bear trap. HSGFX has sported dismal returns since inception. John H’s crystal ball clearly was defective. Maybe Amazon will take it back.

"C shares are going away because they are a bad deal for investors. B shares were a similarly bad deal and they are pretty much, if not completely, extinct."
Good riddance. IMHO for long term investors (even those who moved from fund to fund), C shares were a much worse deal than B shares, which for small investors were little worse than A shares.
B shares convert to A shares after a certain number of years. So depending on growth, you'll wind up with a little more or a little less at the time of conversion than had you purchased A shares instead. No big deal unless you invest enough to get a break on the front end load.
IMHO their bad reputation comes from the fact that brokers misrepresent these as being better, either illegally by saying they are "no load", or legally by saying that they put all your money to work immediately. That's technically true, but their higher ERs gradually erode that advantage until they come out the same as A shares.
C shares, unlike A and B shares, skim money off for the broker in perpetuity. That makes them more costly in the long run and thus worse for investors. In addition, they seem even easier than B shares to sell as "no load". Search MFO, and you'll find more than one poster writing about specific C shares (not identifying the share class), acknowledging the high ER but disregarding the fact that these are in fact high, very high, load funds.
The selling point for C shares is that they are supposedly better for people who only want to own the shares for a year or two. Then what? If they buy other C shares, they continue to pay the same load, year in, year out.
In contrast, once you pay a front end load on an A share, those dollars are good for life. You can transfer between funds of the same family without paying a new load. And until a couple of decades ago, when the industry got even more greedy, you could exchange those shares for A shares at different fund families without paying a new load.
It's called NAV transfer:
https://www.wealthmanagement.com/archive/several-major-fund-companies-end-nav-transfer-programs

FYI: When you're looking for investment ideas — whether individual stocks or mutual fund investment prospects — it makes sense to check the holdings of top dogs. One such pack leader is $1.1 billion AllianzGI Focused Growth (PGWAX), which has the best average annual gain of any U.S. diversified stock fund in its Allianz Global Investors group over the past three years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/allianz-global-investors-mutual-fund-investment/
M* Snapshot PGWAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PGWAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PGWAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/pgwax
PGWAX Is Ranked #74 In The (LCG) fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/allianzgi-focused-growth-fund/pgwax