Except...

But funds that invest in somewhat more narrow slices of the market, as opposed to the broad ownership of nearly all stocks, as well as non-index (i.e. managed) funds, can still make sense too.

If and when this situation will change is obviously unknown, but for now at least, it appears that broad index funds with their constant inflow of new money into a given set of stocks will continue to enjoy a performance advantage over most managed funds. But, at some point, there will likely come an extended period when the higher fees charged by many managed funds will be offset by their inherent flexibility in portfolio decision making.

Source:
funds-newsletter.com/jul18-newsletter/jul18.htm

Cash in a checking or savings account should not be included in an asset allocation exercise. This is purely investments.

@JoJo26,
If the cash is already earmarked for near-term needs, than I agree with you. I also think it’s extremely important folks plan ahead at least a year out and have secure reserve funds for those near term needs.
But, If the cash is being held back as a lever for potential investment at a later date (perhaps in anticipation of a more attractive market entry point or opportunity), than I would respectfully disagree with you. It should be included.
Some investors believe in holding back some “dry power” for possible future deployment (in the form of cash). If that’s their purpose, than I’d vote for counting that sum as part of the overall portfolio. And I believe the questions being asked of @Ted (essentially to fully disclose his cash position on the investment side, if any) are perfectly reasonable.
Agree with your underlying premise that cash held in a savings or checking account is unlikely to be part of one’s investment pool. However, it could be. One interesting case is Price’s ultra short term bond fund (TRBUX). In our own case that fund is held in both an “IRA” (comprising investment cash) and also in a “TOD” account (cash earmarked for near term needs). Regarding the “TOD” account (Transfer on Death in TRP’s language), I actually write checks against that account (minimum $500) to cover near term needs.
Bottom line: When posting one’s holdings as a discussion topic (Let’s assume the purpose here is to provide instruction for others), I think it’s important to be totally clear.
BTW - There is also a “gray area” in that many do hold a large cash reserve (5+ years worth of living expenses). The reason I most often hear is that this allows them to remain very aggressively invested with their invested portfolio. The problem with not counting that cash, is that its mere existence does in fact improve their long-term portfolio performance. So it’s adding to their yearly portfolio numbers - whether or not they want to admit it.

@MikeM- It's all well and good to be "100% invested" but it tells you nothing about an individual's overall exposure if you don't have some idea of their actual cash/cash equivalent position.
Big difference between someone "100% invested" while also sitting on 500k in bank accounts (but we won't count that) and someone "100% invested" with $500 in the bank. My hunch is that Ted is in the first category.

So you are saying you have virtually no bank savings or cash? That 99.5% of your liquid investable net worth is in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and ETFs? That is aggressive.

@davidmoran: Of the three mutual funds, PONCX is 52% of the total invested in mutual funds.
Regards,
Ted

Still can't tell your granularity ... so of the 19% in mfunds, what percentage is in PONCX? 5% of the MS one is cash, but perhaps that can be ignored.
If PONCX is around a third of your mfunds, let us say, then including the MS cash you appear to have ~28% in cash or bonds (plus bank), the rest in equities. Aggressive if true, and if you can stomach it and can afford it, rock on.

FYI: On the aggressive side.
Regards,
Ted
Stocks. 49.66%
Bonds: 20.54%
Mutual Funds: 18.82%
ETFs: 10.59%
Cash: .45%

Don't forget the tariff related layoffs.
Harley Davidson's announcement..
fortune.com/2018/06/25/trump-faces-trade-war-fallout-layoffs-stock-declines-harleys-move-offshore/
Auto manufacturers are likely to follow.
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-27/auto-tariffs-final-step-to-economic-disaster-linamar-ceo-says
All these consequences do not paint a rosy economic pictures going forward.

Although HYG and LQD are good for a quick and dirty look for a given bond sector; and are traded by investors who are playing against the big houses and hedge funds, I have not and do not invest with these etf's.
The below chart is YTD for HYG compared to a decent managed HY fund, ARTFX , as well as LQD compared to a middle of the road corporate bond fund, FCBFX.
These are total return numbers through today, June 27. Place the cursor at the far right end of the chart line of your choice to reveal the YTD.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?HYG,ARTFX,LQD,FCBFX&p=4&O=011000
ADD: investment grade bonds have been able to grab some positive ground and hold during this time of the unknown. Bonds barely moved during the mini melt in Jan./Feb.
NOTE: remain 50% equity in tech. and health, and 50% mmf at 1.5%. Sure don't like the tech. melt, though......

Fascinating fund. About the best investment you could possibly have made over its first 17-18 years of life (1965 onward) as it profited from one financial disaster after the next. After that, not so sweet as the stock of disasters dried up a bit. The fund has now posted a net loss over the past 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 year periods.

Related. Bonds market
Despite surge of market volatility, ‘junk’ corporate bonds are beating high-grade debt. What gives?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/despite-surge-of-market-volatility-junk-corporate-bonds-are-beating-high-grade-debt-what-gives-2018-06-27

Another financial writer who doesn’t take into consideration total return when computiing performance for ETFs. Far from being down (1.9%). YTD, HYG is actually positive YTD on a total return basis, albeit barely. . A fairly large discrepancy for those of us who are into attention to detail. The other large junk bond ETF is down YTD to the tune of 0.61%. The YTD total return for LQD of a negative 5.8% is also inaccurate. The gist of the article was correct however in that junk is outperforming investment grade.

Vanguard is strong in many areas, but ESG investing is not one of them. Anyone who truly cares about such issues as climate change, income inequality, workplace discrimination or excessive executive compensation should look elsewhere:
https://axios.com/top-vanguard-executive-on-trump-climate-f318ee46-9afc-48ae-b928-11e02de5ada6.html
If these SRI/ESG related funds actually changed their specific proxy voting policies on these issues as BlacRock has done for its ESG ETFs, they would become more interesting. Note the difference with iShares ESG ETFs:
https://ishares.com/us/literature/shareholder-letters/proxy-voting-policy-social-index-funds.pdf

FYI: You know a trade war is getting ugly when Harley-Davidson—an iconic American manufacturer—announces plans to shift jobs abroad. But some strategists say investors may be losing sight of the bigger picture: that America is in a strong position to extract trade concessions from China and other countries, and that the U.S. may come out ahead in the long run.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/4-etfs-that-will-prosper-in-a-trade-war-1530121662?mod=hp_highlight_1

And this from AP:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/boat-makers-farmers-us-led-tariff-war-inflicts-56096054

And Robert Samuelson weighs in via The Washington Post:
"We’re going to lose this trade war"
"If we are to have a “trade war” with China, it would be best to win it. We should be better off after the fighting. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening seem slim to none, because President Trump’s plan of attack suggests that everyone — us and them — will lose."
"Trump has suggested imposing a 25 percent tariff on imported cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and parts. This might reduce the trade deficit, but only because higher-priced vehicles would reduce consumer demand and vehicle production. Other countries would retaliate. The estimated U.S. job loss would total 624,000 over one to three years."
"But whatever Congress and Trump do won’t be effective [against China] unless it’s matched by other major trading countries. Trump either doesn’t realize this or doesn’t care. He’s infuriating the very countries whose support he desperately needs. His policies are more than misguided; they’re backward."
"The resulting antagonisms among our allies — already evident... would intensify." "This is doing long-term damage. Trump is upending U.S. trade policy since World War II — one of the most successful policies in history.”
(The excerpts above have been lightly edited for brevity.)

And likely to get much messier before it's over... this from The Wall Street Journal:
As Trade Barriers Go Up, Global Supply Chains Unravel
"The numbers of jobs gained and lost probably end up a wash. The real costs are higher prices and fewer choices for consumers."
"But imposing tariffs on existing supply chains is rife with unintended consequences."
For example:
"Canadian steel uses iron ore from Minnesota, so Mr. Trump’s tariffs hurt both. About 17% of the value of Mexican-made cars exported to the U.S. originated in the U.S.
"Beckett Gas Inc., family-owned manufacturer of components for boilers, furnaces and water heaters, has over the years shifted production from abroad to its Cleveland-area factories. By continuously improving its production process, it has avoided price increases and now sells all over the world.
But that arrangement has been endangered by the 25% tariff on imported steel, the dominant input into Beckett’s products. “There are only foreign competitors to what we do,” Morrison Carter, the company’s chief executive, says. Those competitors now have a 25% cost advantage."

@hank,
In a globally connected economy, the drawdown will likely to spread widely. The steel and aluminum tariff already creating pain in US-based companies such as Harley-
Davidson and others. Even with our allies in Europe and Japan, it is a mess...
https://washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/the-first-layoffs-from-trumps-tariffs-are-here/?utm_term=.9071ebc01a27

FYI: Retirement plan advisers who thought Washington had ditched the idea of requiring Roth 401(k) savings instead of traditional 401(k)s should think again.
Those who closely follow retirement policy say senior legislators on Capitol Hill are again whispering about so-called Rothification. The idea could re-emerge, perhaps to make up for tax-revenue shortfalls related to other retirement legislation being floated, observers said.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=rV0zW970C8vHjwSs5KDgBA&q=Push+to+require+Roth+401(k)+savings+over+traditional+plans+may+re-emerge&oq=Push+to+require+Roth+401(k)+savings+over+traditional+plans+may+re-emerge&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4303.4303.0.6152.3.2.0.0.0.0.66.66.1.2.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.67.6..35i39k1.67.5c8n6pMyLlc

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3366151-chinese-stocks-enter-bear-market
Tipie toe in?!
'Chinese stocks growled their way into a bear market overnight, taking the Shanghai Composite's loss since a January high to 20% and wiping out $1.8T in market value.
Investors have largely ignored government measures to support market sentiment, including a weekend bank reserve-ratio cut, as trade tensions add concerns about Beijing's deleveraging campaign and weaker-than-expected economic data.
Shanghai -0.5% to 2,845. '

@DavidMoran
OK, you're right- I (we?) didn't read down to that part. Note that it states that each couple "have a minimum household income of $75,000 or at least $100,000 in investable assets". Well hell, that's your average American "couple" for sure.
Here's some of what Fidelity actually said:
"Fidelity® Couples Study Uncovers Disconnects on Retirement Expectations"
"43 percent, up from 27 percent in 2013) couldn't correctly identify how much their partner makes—and of that, 10 percent were off by $25,000 or more. Which begs the question: if so many couples can't get this most basic item in their financial lives correct, what other disconnects exist that are unknowingly causing cracks in their financial foundation"
"When asked how much they will need to save to maintain their current lifestyle in retirement, nearly half (48 percent) have "no idea"—and 47 percent are in disagreement about the amount needed. This level of disagreement is highest among those who are closest to retirement—Baby Boomers (born 1946-64)."
"74 percent say they worry about being able to afford unexpected health care costs in retirement, up from 70 percent in 2013. More than half (51 percent) worry about outliving their savings in retirement, a number that is significantly higher than what was reported in 2013."
"Despite these concerns, only 21 percent have developed a retirement plan to ensure they do not outlive their savings"