@johnN
You got it. Take a break, enjoy life; as it goes by much too fast.
If one can look back since the market melt and discovers meddling with one's investments can't match a decent balanced fund; then perhaps it is time to do 90% of a portfolio into this area, and go "play" with the other 10%.
Most of us, sooner or later will come to such a place in life.
A chart look at VFORX , FBALX, and VBINX

@catch, you think the article is good. I think it's average. I have read so many generic articles with generic ideas. I like to discuss specifics and help people with uniques problems because most have unique situations. I made comments about each rule and what can be improved.
As I said before, the most important rule is for someone is to start early and invest 10-15% for many years and pay all the bills monthly on time and don't touch the savings.
If you like to discuss further on any rule please post about it.

“ The 60/40 Stock/Bond Rule is ubiquitous, and that’s stupid because it’s just not right for everyone. Asset allocation is the most important decision, and is designed to achieve objectives. Risk preference needs to be controlled by risk capacity. It’s easy to be smarter than 60/40”.
Strikes me as a “straw man” argument. If you lead off with a dumb enough assertion, than it’s pretty easy to knock it down. I’m not familiar with what fee-only advisors might recommend, but doubt it’s as uniform as he asserts. I did have a commission-based advisor in the early going and he seemed to want me and everybody else he worked with in the most aggressive (all equity) investments available. Likely, that was because he continually skimmed a % of our portfolios off through some type of back load (12-1B perhaps?) for years into the future. Think about that. We, the investors, took the added risk. The adviser stood to profit more depending on the degree of risk we took.
Most good fund houses today, like TRP, make-available a wide range of products across a wide risk spectrum. The classic 60/40 exists. It might even make a convenient starting point for a discussion of risk. But there’s nothing sacred about it. Nothing I’ve read in fund house literature today suggests that the 60/40 is right for everyone. Does John’s author even address the ultra-low bond yields today? That alone ought to make you think twice before plugging 40% into bonds - long dated ones anyway.

@FD1000
As noted earlier:
" to help with thinking and motivation regarding their hard earned money.

The various pieces of the article have been discussed here, too; over the years."
If there are pieces of the article that get some folks off their arses to take some action towards investing, all the better.
No, it is not the perfect write.
Hell, 90% of the folks I've talked investing with for 40 years, never get far off of their arse to take GREAT positive action to their monetary futures.
If some word or words gets someone motivated, to become more curious and study, all the better. Most of us at some time prior to having more time in the investment seat have moved forward from the words or a phrase discovered in a book or publication.
We have not a clue as to what, the majority of the 3,000 or so members here, they have knowledge of, regarding an investing background or desire.

None of the rules will make you wealthy. The best way for an average person it to start saving earlier and keep saving monthly thru 401K(or similar) for years. The more you save the better you will be. Basically, if you start early to meet your employer matching amount, then increase the amount by half of your raise annually to at least 15% you will be in a great shape.
#1: Put It All In One Fund-for most investors it's a good idea and why most 401K have target funds
#2: Create Your Own Yield-most average investors can use great Multisector+NonTrad bond funds for higher yield (examples: PIMIX,VCFIX,SEMMX,IOFIX,JMUTX,JMSIX). For advanced investors who don't mind the high volatility PCI,PDI

#3: Don’t Buy A Long-Term Care Policy-correct
#4: Cut Your Portfolio Management Costs-correct
#5: Pay Off Your Mortgage Rapidly-absolutely not. Do the math and decide based on the numbers. In 2012, at the lowest mortgage rates, I took home equity loan for 5 years at 1.99% interest with zero fees. We didn't need it but it was a no-brainer to know that I cam make much more than 2% in the next 5 years.
#6: Moonlight-no if you can. Select a profession that pays well
Basically, the article is average at best. It missed the most important rule of saving early and at least 10-15% for years. It failed on what bond funds to buy (not all bonds are treasuries) and CD,MM are not a good option. The rest was the easy part.

I don’t know if 60/40 is stupid, but this “article” might be.
“For decades, the “go to” asset allocation used by most investment advisors is 60% in equities and 40% in bonds”... There have been studies observing that certain allocations outperformed for periods of time, but how do you back the claim that “most advisors” blindly recommend it?
And does asset allocation really “explain 100% of investment performance”?
The statement about the average IRA allocation being 60/40 reminds me of the Dilbert comic where the supervisor suggests something nefarious is going on because 40% of employees’ sick days occur on Monday or Friday.

Sorry, one more piece may be worth adding. The majority of their leverage is coming from an index swap. So they're just adding exposure to a few indices, like the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 on top of their disclosed holdings and that more than doubles their exposure to equities. They also have a swap as of 9/30/19 that gives them exposure to 14 stocks where the value of that exposure adds another 50% or so of their NAV to holdings they already have at much lower exposures.
One quick and simple example as of 9/30/19. The fund directly owns 8,068 shares of Mastercard, which they show as a little more than 2% of NAV, but in one of their swaps they hold 16,000 shares of Mastercard which roughly doubles their exposure without disclosing it directly and their index swaps would again indirectly increases the fund's holdings of Mastercard based on the stock's weighting in the indexes)

Forgive me if I'm repeating a piece of the puzzle that's already been stated but I think the Venture Capital Fund is leveraged a bit more than 2:1 and that's what's driving the outsized returns, that's the secret sauce. I haven't quite figured out how they managed to only lose 22 or 23% at the end of 2018 but I guess that suggests they did a good job picking stocks or they cut their leverage in between public reporting dates and we can't see that anywhere. At the end of Q3 2018 they were something like 217% long and at the end of Q4 2018 they were more like 270% long, which is probably why they recovered from the drawdown so quickly.
M* reports the portfolio exposures incorrectly because they account for the swaps the fund uses in the "other" investments but they don't account for the notional value of those swaps. M* counts the fund's asset allocation to these swaps based on the profit or loss the fund has on the swaps but the notional value is what really matters, not just the profit or loss. You can see the notional values of the swaps by looking at the fund's quarterly schedule of portfolio holdings at sec.gov/edgar.
Just my humble opinion but because of the leverage the Leland fund uses you can't really do a performance comparison with the Primecap fund, which uses no leverage, and call it apples to apples. I'm also not sure what you intended to compare, @openice, because POAGX started in 2004, not 1984 (that was Vanguard Primecap, VPMCX), POAGX has more than $10 billion of AUM, VPMCX has more like $69 billion, and I can't figure out what period of time your performance figures relate to, the roughly 9.5% for each of the 3 funds you were comparing. It doesn't seem to be the 3 years I thought you were suggesting for either POAGX or VPMCX.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/is-the-60-40-stock-bond-rule-stupid-2020-01-21
Is The 60/40 Stock/Bond Rule Stupid?
Ron Surz
PUBLISHED
JAN 21, 2020 11:24AM EST
The 60/40 Stock/Bond Rule is ubiquitous, and that’s stupid because it’s just not right for everyone.
Asset allocation is the most important decision, and is designed to achieve objectives. Risk preference needs to be controlled by risk capacity.
It’s easy to be smarter than 60/40

@msf, Aren’t Treasury’s federal tax-exempt?

But let’s go back 20 years to early 2000, when the S&P 500 was at roughly 1500.
If you had bought then and held until now, that works out to be an average annual return of just 4%.
4% is better than zero… but it’s hardly anything to write home about.
[This return doesn’t factor in dividends, taxes, fund management fees, or inflation… but those effects all largely offset one another.]
...since 2000, the S&P 500 has returned just 4%, while a 20-year government bond would have paid you 6.9% over the same period. That’s a HUGE difference of nearly 3%.

A most slanted "analysis".
The nominal rate of return of VFINX, including dividends and management fees was about 6.2%. (A $10K investment on 1/22/2000 would have been worth $33,232.15 on 1/21/2020 according to this

M* chart.)
The article notes that the S&P 500 figures would have been lower after taxes. Mysteriously though, it doesn't likewise take note of the ordinary income taxes that would have been owed on interest paid year in, year out by long term bonds.
Sure, VFINX spins off taxable divs, and they're significant. A fact that article chose to ignore. Still, only part of VFINX's gain would have been taxed annually. In addition, starting in 2003 those divs would have been qualified, thus taxed at the lower cap gains rate. As would its appreciation have been taxed as cap gains upon sale at the end of 20 years.
Now let's talk about reinvestment risk. Had you purchased a Treasury in 2000, you would have received taxable interest of 6.9% on that principal each year. But you would not have gotten 6.9% on your reinvested interest. You would have ridden the yield curve all the way down to 2% over the next couple of decades.
Put together the taxes and the decline of rates on reinvested interest, and that 6.2% return on VFINX begins to look pretty good. And that's including the (lack of) returns through the "lost decade".

RPHYX available NTF at Vanguard RPHIX also but $100,000 minimum. $50 redemption fee in 60 days

Why would I buy SHV when MM pays the same?
Because the Fed is expanding its balance sheet stocks and bonds are doing great..
In the last 3 months (link) SHV made 0.4% but PIMIX made 2.7% and NHMAX(HY Muni) made 3% and SPY made over 10%

My thought too. Only reason I can see is 100% defensive position. But they are buying because it is their job.

Why would I buy SHV when MM pays the same?
Because the Fed is expanding its balance sheet stocks and bonds are doing great..
In the last 3 months (link) SHV made 0.4% but PIMIX made 2.7% and NHMAX(HY Muni) made 3% and SPY made over 10%

But let’s go back 20 years to early 2000, when the S&P 500 was at roughly 1500.
If you had bought then and held until now, that works out to be an average annual return of just 4%.
4% is better than zero… but it’s hardly anything to write home about.
[This return doesn’t factor in dividends, taxes, fund management fees, or inflation… but those effects all largely offset one another.]
...since 2000, the S&P 500 has returned just 4%, while a 20-year government bond would have paid you 6.9% over the same period. That’s a HUGE difference of nearly 3%.

A most slanted "analysis".
The nominal rate of return of VFINX, including dividends and management fees was about 6.2%. (A $10K investment on 1/22/2000 would have been worth $33,232.15 on 1/21/2020 according to this M* chart.)
The article notes that the S&P 500 figures would have been lower after taxes. Mysteriously though, it doesn't likewise take note of the ordinary income taxes that would have been owed on interest paid year in, year out by long term bonds.
Sure, VFINX spins off taxable divs, and they're significant. A fact that article chose to ignore. Still, only part of VFINX's gain would have been taxed annually. In addition, starting in 2003 those divs would have been qualified, thus taxed at the lower cap gains rate. As would its appreciation have been taxed as cap gains upon sale at the end of 20 years.
Now let's talk about reinvestment risk. Had you purchased a Treasury in 2000, you would have received taxable interest of 6.9% on that principal each year. But you would not have gotten 6.9% on your reinvested interest. You would have ridden the yield curve all the way down to 2% over the next couple of decades.
Put together the taxes and the decline of rates on reinvested interest, and that 6.2% return on VFINX begins to look pretty good. And that's including the (lack of) returns through the "lost decade".

I remember those (80's) years well. My family had some A rated bonds that were paying north of 10% interest.
The article's message (although unwritten) brings forward a good reason to have a portfolio that is built upon both stocks, bonds and (yes) cash. Bank then I had a bank money fund that paid well along with some CD's that were held in an IRA account. It was not hard at all to get eight ... ten ... and even twelve percent on fixed investements back in the 80's. Stock dividends, in gereral, were higher back then than they are today as well.
Have a good one ... and, most of all ... I wish all "good investing."

@FD1000

DHEIX is the only one with 80+% in investment-grade rating. I can't buy DHEIX at Schwab but I can buy DHEAX with no fees.

I'm pleased that someone mentioned DHEIX at this point in this discussion and its performance. It has outperformed RPHIX lifetime, 3yr., 2yr., and 1yr. (Also, I note that it has a negative correlation, although a small one, to RPHIX.) I do own DHHIX, the HY offering, and have been considering DHEIX for purchase. Both funds are $20/TF at Vanguard.

https://www.capitalists.com/blog/2020/01/21/the-investment-that-destroyed-the-sp-500/
2020The investment that destroyed the S&P 500
The year was 1990, and the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The Berlin Wall was still in the process of being destroyed, and East and West Germany were set to reunify later in the year.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4318061-federal-reserve-bank-is-buying-t-bills-and-you-should-too
The Federal Reserve Bank Is Buying T-Bills And You Should Too
Jan. 21, 2020 11:45 AM ETiShares Short Treasury Bond ETF (SHV)5 Comments
Summary
Investors should heed warning from the latest Fed move and consider purchasing the iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF.
SHV offers investors a safe return on short-term cash with a 30-day yield of 1.5% and a negative beta. The SHV is a very conservative way invest short-term capital.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York added $60.7 billion in treasury bill purchases last week within the repo market

I put more emphasis on the last 3 years. When I compare RPHIX,ZEOIX,SEMMX,DHEIX(link)
RPHIX has inferior numbers to the other 3.
DHEIX is the only one with 80+% in investment-grade rating. I can't buy DHEIX at Schwab but I can buy DHEAX with no fees.

Not just T. Rowe Price.

Vanguard, the largest passive-fund manager with $3.8 trillion in assets, is likely to become the largest active manager as well within a few years. Currently Vanguard boasts $1.37 trillion in active mutual fund assets, well ahead of Fidelity and only $179 billion behind American Funds, thanks to a higher growth rate on strong inflows at a time when most such funds are seeing outflows.

and

“We think it’s more appropriate to compare ‘high cost vs. low cost’ funds, instead of active vs. passive.”

It's the economics, stupid :-)
https://www.inquirer.com/business/vanguard-jack-bogle-passive-active-mutual-fund-etf-20190527.html
(FWIW, I hold actively managed funds in both houses.)