The two funds I mentioned now have $1 million minimums and are closed. I bought them when Fidelity had $2500 minimum for retirement accounts, so I'm hesitant to exit my positions.

Right... You don't really care what happen yo the market if you hold individual bonds vs etf or bond funds. You Don't pay Er preload or afterload. Of course etf or bond funds are more diverse. As long as stock Do not bankrupt bond will continue to pay div until matures. you will be ok
.?? If that do you stand to gain 20%versuse losing 15% in any given yr or if you are just being happy to gain 7% per yr no matter what Happen to market and hold bond until matutity.
Imho you probably need a good mixture of stocks and bond both dependent how much risks you have to take .

The size of an investors portfolio vs budget is the most important discussion with a financial planner IMHO. This will drive asset allocation and risk tolerance. The age of the investor is the most critical component of that discussion as you noted. 100 % S&P 500 is a very aggressive portfolio. I believe in a balanced portfolio with income producing instruments. My personal AA preference is the "pay your bills first" method which requires income producers. All new investors should consult a financial professional.

... I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index. ... The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

Hi shipwreckedandalone,
Thanks for commenting. (Worth a lot more than 2c). All valid points. It’s not clear to me whether this represents a portion of your total invested assets or all of them. I suspect it’s the former. That said, I don’t think the argument for real estate or any other granular asset class rests only on maximizing return. There may be other considerations like diversifying assets (and hopefully mitigating risk), increasing income stream, hedging against the unexpected (rampant inflation, depression, war, tax law changes, etc.)
If I were age 25-40 and gainfully employed I’d be inclined to put 100% into growth (even possibly the S&P 500) and let her ride come Hell or high-water. A single fund (2 or 3 at most) would work fine. Even at age 40-50 that might make sense - but would require a stronger risk appetite. At 70 or older (with perhaps a 20-year life expectancy I believe an all-growth portfolio foolhearty, unless one is trying to build assets for posterity (estate planning). In that case, long as your own funding is assured for your lifetime, a 100% growth portfolio might still make sense.
To glean an appreciation of how much a 100% S&P 500 investment can fall in a relatively short time we need go back hardly more than a single decade (from Wikepedia): “The US bear market of 2007–2009 was a 17-month bear market that lasted from October 9th 2007 to March 9th 2009, during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The S&P 500 lost approximately 50% of its value.”
Now - to sit still and endure the pain for 17 consecutive months while watching your total investment egg fall by 50% takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude. And, remember that on March 8, 2009 after 17 months of free-fall, there was no guarantee the market would reverse direction. History has taught that these downturns can persist for much longer. If an index can tumble 50% in 17 months ... it can just as easily fall 60 or 70% over a longer time. No law says it has to stop at 50%. (It’s likely real estate fared even worse during that period.)
In a nutshell, it depends a great deal on your life situation and ability to endure punishment. I think all of us could do a better job relating our age and years to / into retirement when discussing our allocations. One size does not fit all. Such understanding might benefit the younger newbies - if any.
PS: Just my humble mumble. I am not a qualified advisor. Other points of view welcomed.

FYI: The chances of a recession by the end of 2020 are mounting. And the prospects for the American stock market in the next decade have worsened appreciably.
Those are prognoses, not facts. But they’re not just offhand projections, either. They are the sober assessments of Vanguard, the $5 trillion asset management firm. And they suggest that the current good times may amount to a reprieve: an opportunity to make sure that you are prepared for a storm.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/vanguard-recession-economy.html

REIT's are a valid asset class and can certainly be used in a portfolio. Of course you can post this on the Boglehead board, as there are many Bogleheads that use REITS and there are a large number of Bogleheads that do not use the 3 fund portfolio. You may want to visit 150 portfolio sight, there you will see 150 different modeled portfolios, many of which use REIT's. David Swensen who manages Yale endowment recommends 20% in REITs. See:
https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/150-portfolios-better-than-yours/

Hi @johnN: A good read as to why bonds need to be part of an investors asset allocation. Currently, bonds are about 25% of Old_Skeet's asset allocation. A few years ago I was at about 30% bonds but gradually reduced to add some convertibles, commodities, business development, infrastructure, and real estate. Now, I'm thinking since equities are fully valued it's time to start gradually increasing my bond allocation back towards the 30% range. This should not be to hard to do as my portfolio generates a good bit of excess cash over and above what I take as distributions. My late father had a saying ..."Income never goes out of style."

>> I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers
Speaking of that slow process, you sound like one who might enjoy having part of your SP500 holding be the CAPE etn.

I have gone round and round though the years about the issue of how granular a portfolio should be. I think a REIT allocation is probably good, however I personally have decided to use the S&P 500 and stop further in depth allocations such as much discussed finer granular reits, mlp's, utilities etc. S&P500 contains all of the aforementioned within the index so I will stop there. The SP500 holds 3% reits and utilities so good enough for me. The argument can be made for more granularity outperforming the S&P500, but i will live with the simple solution. I like the fact mutual funds can easily reinvest dividends/cap gains if needed while some ETF's cannot (easily). I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers. just my 2c.

FYI: A labor union representing American teachers on Friday urged pension funds to cut their exposure to investment firms that have funneled millions of dollars into private prisons, saying the companies are getting rich on the U.S. government’s practice of separating migrant families.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-education-pensions-investment/u-s-teachers-union-urges-pensions-to-cut-investment-in-private-prisons-idUSKBN1KV2E5

Definitely. I use Vanguard Global ex-US REIT, ETF, VNQI to expand oversea exposure - higher volatility without USD hedging than domestic REIT index. Also I use Fidelity Real Estate Income for domestic REIT (50/50 REIT equity/debt) - respectable return with 4.2% dividend.

"The following is our latest Fund Analyst Report for Primecap Odyssey Growth (POGRX)." I own their aggressive growth fund and I am one happy camper. A Fund Spy report from M*:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/878065/what-separates-primecap-odyssey-growth-from-the-re.html

" When he says “Roths,” he's talking about Roth conversions as opposed to Roth contributions."
This is largely an artificial distinction. If one shouldn't be converting to a Roth, then one shouldn't be contributing to a Roth either. This is because that Roth contribution is essentially a (deductible) traditional contribution followed immediately by a Roth conversion. And he's saying not to do that second step - the conversion.
Okay, there are minor differences. That Roth contribution for 2018 can be done until April 15, 2019, while if you take the contribute/convert route, it only goes on the record for 2018 if you do the conversion before Dec 31. And while you can't undo a Roth conversion, you can undo a Roth contribution (treating it as a contribution to a deductible IRA). But these minor differences don't affect his major concerns.
Whether the money goes into the Roth from a conversion or a contribution, that amount is going to be taxed as ordinary income. Thus from a tax perspective, there's no difference between converting and contributing directly.
IMHO for many people the biggest reason to keep some pre-tax IRA money around is to be able to make qualified charitable distributions (QCDs). He points this out, but I'd like to emphasize and amplify it.
First, under the new tax laws, it is harder to take charitable deductions, because it's gotten harder to itemize. QCDs get around this problem. Second, unlike taking a distribution and then deducting the contribution (assuming one still itemizes), a QCD reduces top line income. (It gets rid of a taxable distribution.) That can have a favorable effect on how much of SS benefits are taxed, or whether you have to pay IRMAA - an increased Medicare premium due to higher income.

Hi Guys,
Peter Lynch was referenced earlier in this exchange, and 5 of his famous 20 investing rules were provided. For those who are interested in the complete set of 20 rules, here is a Link to an article that lists all of them:
https://www.gurufocus.com/news/341584/peter-lynch-golden-rules-for-investing-
That's a lot of wisdom accumulated over a lifetime of market investment experience. Enjoy and prosper.
Best Wishes

Thanks Ted. If one uses that to look at rolling ten year periods (there are 81), in 65 of them stocks (S&P 500) outperform 10 year Treasuries and 3 month Treasuries, in 9 of them the 10 years outperform, and in 7 of them cash (3 month T-bill) is king.

Coming to a theater near you: The MAGA-lo-Don, corruption consuming the body politic:

"Morningstar rates its sustainability to be in the top two percent of its category."
That seems like a bit of a non sequitur. I mean it's correct, and would make a lot of sense bringing up in the thread on PRBLX (ESG funds in general). But here, it doesn't seem to be addressing any question raised.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/745467/morningstar-sustainability-rating.html
If you're concerned with how M* views the prospects of this fund are going forward, its analyst rating is Neutral, which is actually pretty low. (FWIW, I place very little stock in M* analyst ratings, though I do care about the thinking behind them - which I may agree with or disagree with.)

So you have read and studied the fact sheet along with understanding that it is a dividend strategy fund? It seeks to invest in the highest dividend companies and employees the Dogs of the Dow strategy for about one third of invested assets ... and, the other two thirds is invested choosing high yielding stocks from the broader market. Below is what Sun America states as to the funds objective.
Fund Objective: Seeks total return (including capital appreciation and current income) by employing a “buy and hold” strategy involving the annual selection of up to 30 high dividend yielding common stocks from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and broader market.
In addition, Morningstar rates its sustainability to be in the top two percent of its category. My own experience is that it has performed well, in the past, during market downdrafts. Will it continue to do that? Most likely; but, there are no guarantees when it comes to investing.
In checking the funds holdings (again at Morningstar) I am finding its two largest holdings one being Macy's is up ytd 61.35% and the other Darden Restruants is up 16.53%. You might wish to view the Morningstar report on the fund's portfolio holdings while performing your due diligence as it will give you a list of its top holdings along with their year to date returns.
I am not going to debate the attributes of the fund or defend it. It one of three funds that I hold in my domestic equity sleeve found in the growth and income area of my portfolio. The other two funds held within this sleeve are American Funds Fundamental Investor (ANCFX) and Federated Strategic Value Dividend (SVAAX).
Again, I wish you well in doing your due diligence.
I'm thinking if you have great concerns with the fund then perhaps it might not be for you. But, again I'm happy with it for it has generated a good income stream since I have owned it (and now being in retirement that is important to me) paying out last year about $2.00 per share in dividends and capital gains distributions combined. That computes to better than a 10% distribution yield. Plus its ten year (full market cycle) rolling total return is 12.82% putting it in the top one percent for its category.
And again, if you are not happy with it perhaps you will find something more to your liking.

Sometimes it seems like those in office (elected or appointed) who are supposedly serving our interests are actually serving theirs. Of course we’re all innocent until proven guilty. But sometimes just the appearance stinks badly.
“After a public announcement, the company’s stock price plunged 92 percent.“
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gop-congressman-from-new-york-charged-with-insider-trading/2018/08/08/7254c6b0-9b3c-11e8-a8d8-9b4c13286d6b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1322ad40173b