Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through May, which includes month to date performance through Friday, 19 June.
Beginning with this update, all flow data now rolls-up to the oldest share class level. Flows of other share classes remain as reported by Refinitiv.
This update was adopted after me getting alarmed at the billions of dollars of outflows from DODGX, who has rewarded investors handsomely these past three years. But alas, the outflows were just inflows to newly established DOXGX share class.

I have home/auto/umbrella through State Farm. I've had a couple major (~$100,000) home claims and a few minor claims over the years. Perhaps it is my local people, but I would say they have done more than right by me. No jumps in rates due to claims, either. Not interested in pursuing lower cost.

@BaluBalu Thanks for the link I reread the comments with my rather general current question in mind. Midstream stocks such as ET and EPD initially continue to make sense too me because of the increased volume through the pipes. But upstream producers such as FANG may well get hurt if the restraint on production in recent years gets upended by an increased numbers of operators. What about downstream operations? There will be more quantity to process. Perhaps refiners and distributors will benefit.

@staycalm,
Thanks.
Your allocation info is what I was looking for to see how large an Alt allocation you have. I thought it might be easy for you to just copy and paste from your portfolio tracker and so I made a broader request.
The purpose of the price movement request is to see how each of your Alts did today. I have a sense for how general equity and fixed income have performed today.
I do not think I ever got to more than 15% in Alts. Of the many I tried, I had success with only one (QMNIX) because it trended for some time. I thought it was too much work and gave up on them for years. Instead I was happy just to dial up or down equity allocation and to go out on the credit spectrum - seemed less work for me. I got into QLEIX earlier this year and very recently into BLNDX - both meaningless size positions for me - I think my mental block is I need to be able to explain the price movement of what I own (the "too much work" comes from this mental friction).
Do you include tactical allocation funds like MRFOX in equity or Alts?

@BaluBalu,
I could see over the next several years stepping into VELIX to be 10%-15% of the portfolio...I'm likely a couple years away from stepping away from the corporate work environment...who knows, still enjoying most days what I do...and am therefore in that danger zone, within 5 years of retirement (whatever that means, right?) and post 5 years retirement...I'm very very high in cash equiv's, like over 90%...works for me, wouldn't recommend it for most but I should be transparent and state my wife and I were in the highest tax bracket for quite a few years...so what we left on the table with the uptick in markets we overcame slippage of inflation with salary/bonus/stock options etc...fully acknowledge that I've been actually taking on risk by being too conservative but on days like this, I'm going for a bike ride this evening and not overly concerned about what the markets are doing...back in my younger days, in the 20's and 30's, was uber aggressive in the stock market...not anymore...
Kind Regards,
BF

It sounds like you're in good shape - drawing modest spending cash from T-IRAs annually and owning no or little tax on those draws. From that perspective, conversions may indeed be just an added complication.
I've spoken with enough people who prefer simplicity, so take the following nudge toward conversions as just a suggestion, perhaps not worth the effort as you say.
I expect that the RMDs will have to be bigger than the amount I'm currently taking each year in January, but I'm confident we'll still owe no 1040 tax.
Roth conversions now can reduce the size of those RMDs and keep more of the money tax-sheltered for longer. This may not matter to you since you don't expect to owe taxes either way.
But if you're thinking of leaving a legacy, it could matter to your heirs. They'll owe taxes on an inherited T-IRA as they withdraw money. They won't owe taxes on inherited taxable accounts (they get a step-up in basis), but all future earnings will be taxable to them. They won't owe taxes on inherited Roths and the money can continue growing tax free for up to ten years. Even longer for a spouse who inherits.
Each person's situation is different. The amount of money you might convert could be small enough that it's just not worth the hassle. In my case, some of my beneficiaries are nonresident aliens living where there is no tax treaty. They will be subject to 30% withholding. So I'm doing conversions over many years to reduce my T-IRAs.
Finally, the good news - you get another year (until age 73) before RMDs kick in.

@msf. @catch22
Hello, guys. For several years after retirement, wifey's salary served to fund my T-IRA. We just chose to throw the $$$ into my IRA instead of hers. Mine is much more substantial. Then some life changes made funding ANY T-IRA impractical. Her IRA lives, and so does my own. Under current circumstances, converting to a Roth just seems like a needless complication. We grow the taxable side now, and I'm in the habit of taking X amount from my T-IRA in January each year. We owe no 1040 tax. When I get to age 72 in a couple of years, I'll continue with the same habit, taking out my RMD in January and I'll just redeploy the money, investing it on the taxable side. I expect that the RMDs will have to be bigger than the amount I'm currently taking each year in January, but I'm confident we'll still owe no 1040 tax.
When all our stuff (except her small T-IRA) was with TRP, we were limited to just their own funds. After switching everything to Schwab, the field is wide open. But I'm rather pleased, still, with my TRP selections, plus the Weitz fund that her T-IRA is in. So, no changes are expected or needed, until junk bonds turn South. Then that money will need a new home. I'm always looking for new prospects, and have some in mind, as needed. Our tax bracket will not be going UP, even after RMDs kick-in at 72. (Two more years.)
Your responses are much appreciated. The people on this MFO discussion board actually care. I do thank you.

@BaluBalu...I already have a high majority of my investment portfolio in Tbills, US Treasury mmkt's, Tnotes 2 years or less and some CDs from major banks...am looking at VELIX for exposure to the stock market...not sure having shorts on all the time makes sense...I'd then just lower exposure to stocks and add to cash holdings.
A better comparison set would be VELIX vs VFINX (Vanguard equiv to SP500), no?...and looking out over the next 5 years...I'd would and AM taking the VELIX side of that wager...we'll see...

Consider yourself fortunate that you haven't been doing this for fifty years (or have you?)
My father purchased shares of "One William Street" back when mutual funds issued certificates (image below not his certificate)

This was originally a fund run by Lehman. Subsequent owners due to mergers, sales of investment units, etc. were Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc, Shearson Lehman Brothers, Shearson Lehman Hutton,

Salomon Brothers, Salamon Smith Barney (under Travelers, then Citicorp), Smith Barney (under Citicorp),

Legg Mason, and now Franklin Templeton.
Fund family/fund name changes didn't always coincide with parent changes (as with Mainstay changing to NY Life).
Fund names evolved from One William Street to Salomon Brothers Investors Fund, Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund, Legg Mason Partners Investors Value Fund, Legg Mason Clearbridge Investors Value Fund, Legg Mason Clearbridge Large Cap Value Fund, Clearbridge Large Cap Value Fund. (The three Legg Mason names were in a span of just four years: 2009-2013.)
Alas, same as it ever was. Yes, most of it is nonsense - the name changes, the mergers, the ads.
I wrote a more detailed description of this fund's evolution a decade ago:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/21862/#Comment_21862

IIRC, when I read Random Walk back in the 80's, Malakiel was saying you could build a diversified portfolio with 20-30 Stocks. He might have changed that over the years. After poking around on the internet, it seems many people agree.
Anyway, seems to me a concentrated, or focused, fund is something heavily weighted to one, maybe two, ideas. And you can have that problem no matter how many stocks are in the portfolio.
Given the number of examples in the OP, we could be dealing with random chance.

@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.

@BaluBalu / I’m just touchy. Sorry.
I don’t buy the turnaround story. What turnaround? LOL. The stock got overpriced a few years ago when consumer staples were hot as investments. Topped out over $135 in January 2022 and then began falling, dipping briefly below $100 about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Adding to the decline has been a very hot dollar which has appreciated for years now against the franc and other global currencies. If someone isn’t interested in taking a gambit on currencies they should avoid buying foreign stocks unless there’s some currency hedging.
Also hurting has been the fear among investors “weight-loss” drugs will reduce the value of food companies. Perhaps well placed. But this misses that NSRGY is much larger than food, being in many consumer staples like pet food, bottled waters, cosmetics.
List of Nestlie brands
I bought in at around $102 a month or so ago. Sold at $105.54 10-12 days back. Jumped in at $105.62 this morning. My cash is mostly in a TOD account. Buying something in an IRA requires selling another security first. So, I really don’t have the luxury of sitting on a limit order for long because the security I sold might go out of reach. To me, whether I have 5% sitting in NSRGY or in an intermediate-long duration bond fund is of little consequence. If anything, a 10-year duration bond fund is probably more volatile than this stock and with a more limited return potential.
Happy investing!

The answer - 11 (prime number).

Why stop at 11, 13, 17, and 19 are also prime numbers.
But I like your Prime thing and why I have used 2,3 in the last several years and 5 for many years.

@BenWP, I like this site for descriptions of ETF's. Since XMMO runs on specific rules I would think it would only need competent attendants. Nota bene: It has only been running on these rules for five years.
I always check the "comps" on ETF's at this site.
You are correct about recent performance. It's a little too bumpy for me for the IRA. I don't feel the need in the taxable since I was able to get into VSMIX.

@WABAC and @BaluBalu: re: XMHQ.
For some reason I spotted XMMO, the Invesco MC momentum fund, dancing across the bottom of my TV screen. This fund has been outperforming for nearly three years, catching and passing XMHQ this year. M* cites 136% turnover and a current allocation of 42% to industrials, a large over weight. The frequent trading has not been reflected in increased distributions in the last couple of years, a problem we've noted with XMHQ.
When I try on M* to find out who the managers are, at least the ones responsible for every-day matters, Invesco lists 4 people who are also responsible for just about every equity ETF that Invesco sponsors. I wonder how the "real" managers determine what stocks are candidates for inclusion.

Thanks, @hank. Very generous of you.
Is P/E 22 the new P/E 12! Seems like everything worth owning these days is P/E 20+.
If it is a turnaround story, P/E is likely to be high and I can overlook P/E.
Mark Schneider has been there for 7 years. I am surprised he has not turned the ship around. He did a great job at Fresenius (my client many moons ago).
I did not think any company could be a bigger mess than GE (of course, until I saw BA). Larry took over GE only in 2018 and it probably took him 4 years to turn that lump of coal into a diamond.
I am a sucker for turnaround stories. I have to learn more about NSRGY story: what is the trigger and the time frame for the trigger. If you happen to have the answers, please share.
I do not have access to Barrons.
I just took an initial position to do more research.
Edit: do you hold your position in a taxable account to make use of the foreign tax credit of withholding taxes on dividends?

Concentration by itself doesn't work. I have been using concentration + momentum + best risk/reward funds + being in the right wide-range categories.
Since I started in 1995, there have been three long term cycles
1995-2000 + 2010-2020 = US Large cap tilting growth
2000-2010 = US Value, some small cap and some international
BTW, I changed the number of funds from 5 (2000-2018) to only 2-3 since retirement in 2018 because I can only find very limited great ideas.
You can read how I did it (here).

I think that most investors would generate similar to better results over time by using up to 5-7 funds, mostly indexes, hardly trade, and rebalance...all based on their goals, style and risk tolerance.
I never believed in any of the above, which is why I became a trader in 2000, when the stock market started to go down. It worked really well for me, using wide range categories
Another observation: markets have long cycles where 1-3 categories are above the rest, so why rebalance?
I started investing in 1995 based on the following:.
1995-2000: US LC tilting growth.
2000-2010: US Value+SC, and international. SPY+QQQ lost money for 10 years.
2010-2024: US LC tilting growth. Since 2018, I'm mostly in bond OEFs.

"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

That's the inverse of the JR wrote, and inverses are often not true. (See The Fallacy of the Inverse, and Example 41 here.)
JR: If two assets have same LT TR, rebalancing helps portfolio TR.
Inverse: If two assets do not have same LT TR, rebalancing does not help (hurts) portfolio TR.
JR's statement can be understood intuitively. If asset 1 has a good year (relative to asset 2) and the assets have the same long term returns, then in the other years (on average) asset 1 must do worse. Since it will do worse, one would be better off moving some money from asset 1 to asset 2, i.e. rebalancing.
But even if asset 2 has poorer long term returns than asset 1, it could have better returns in the right years so that rebalancing still improves performance.
Suppose we have stocks (asset 1) and bonds (asset 2), and they return 10% and 8% respectively in odd years, and 8% and 9% respectively in even years. On average (long term), stocks return just under 9.0% (10% and 8% compounded), while bonds return just under 8.5% (8% and 9%).
In odd years, stocks do better (10% vs 8%) and rebalancing moves money from stocks to bonds. The next (even) year, bonds do better (9% vs. 8%). So moving money from stocks to bonds (rebalancing) turns out to be the right move. Likewise, in even years, bonds do better; rebalancing moves money from bonds to stocks which then do better the next year. Again, the right move.
The world isn't that neat, and often rebalancing won't improve portfolio performance. But arithmetically, one can't say that rebalancing must hurt total return.

And if the heir is a spouse at least 10 years younger than the deceased, there is a particular, more generous draw-down table in the case of a T-IRA. Not sure about 401k or 403b.
https://irahelp.com/forum-post/77387-ira-spouse-beneficiary-withdrawal-rules-different-when-10-year-age-difference/

There are different rules for the living and the dead. The rule regarding RMD calculations when there is a 10+ year difference in spouses' ages applies primarily to RMDs taken by the older spouse when both spouses are alive. No deceased here, just the living.
When it comes to IRAs inherited from deceased spouses, there's a good amount of flexibility but the 10 year age gap rule either doesn't apply (as described in the next paragraph) or is effectively moot (as described after that).
It is frequently better (and certainly simpler) for a younger surviving spouse to assume the inherited IRA as their own. That is, roll it into their own IRA. This pushes the RMD start date back to that of the surviving spouse.
But some surviving spouses need the inherited money now. By keeping money in an inherited IRA, they are allowed to withdraw it without penalty. They do have to take out at least as much as the deceased would have been required to take as RMD (if the deceased had reached RMD start age). But since the objective here is to have access to more money, that RMD won't really matter. Regardless of how it is calculated.