FYI: Investing for good can also be a good investment. A number of the mutual funds that take environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) into account when making investing decisions have proven to be stellar performers. Two of our top 10 ESG funds—selected using a formula that takes 1, 3 and 5-year total returns into account—beat the S&P 500 over all three periods. Investors are taking notice: Investments in these funds are up 33 percent in the U.S. since 2014, to $8.7 trillion. That’s 22 percent of all professionally managed U.S. assets. Harvard Management Co., which oversees Harvard University’s $36 billion endowment fund, recently announced plans to make sustainability the driving factor in selecting new investments for its natural resource portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-ten-funds-with-a-conscience/

I think the question is more how many funds do you 'want' in order to feel comfortable about your portfolio ...

Mark's comment got me thinking about the multiple redundant systems used on aircraft. I suspect some of that same type of thinking goes into portfolio construction by many.
A few excerpts from an article on the subject:
- A 747 can take off with two out of four engines out. A 737, 757, 767 and 777 can take off with one out of two engines out. A 727 can take off with two out of three engines out at sea level ...
- The 777 flight critical systems are quadruply redundant. There are 4 flight management computers, located in different parts of the airplane (so a collision will not take out all of the electronics). If the flight management computer system fails catastrophically, then the pilot can still use the autopilot to fly. If the autopilot fails, the pilot can still fly the airplane by hand.
- The 747 has 4 main landing gear struts. The 777 has 6 wheels on each main landing gear and has redundant structural elements controlling the main gear.
- The 747 has a quadruple redundant hydraulics. The DC-10 has triple redundant hydraulics. Why 4 instead of 3? It was a design decision back in the late sixties. But.... one day, a 747 took off from San Francisco airport and struck a light tower at the end of the runway. That took out three of the four hydraulic systems. The pilot was able to fly the airplane over the pacific, dump fuel, and return to the airport safely. This is not to disparage the DC-10, which is a fine airplane. But the 747 is better.
- The new airplanes have only two engines. But they also have a little gizmo called a Ram Air Turbine, or RAT. If the airplane should lose both engines in flight, the RAT will pop out of the belly of the airplane and power the electronics and hydraulics long enough for the pilot to make a dead-stick landing.
- The 777 has multiply redundant navigation systems. It has a strapdown inertial navigation system, which can measure acceleration and rotation yet it has no moving parts, so it can navigate without any outside reference. It also has a Global Positioning System receiver so it can navigate via satellite. It has the usual compliment of Automatic Direction Finders (ADF), Visual Omnidirection Range (VOR), and glide slope receivers, so it can navigate via radio. And finally, the pilot can always get on the radio and ask "where the hell am I?" ...
http://www.commercialventvac.com/fear.html
Note that what you need to fly isn't necessarily the same as what you need to fly comfortably and safely.
-
Article doesn't mention reserve fuel. By law aircraft need to carry enough to be able to divert to an acceptable alternative airport and than circle that airport for 30 minutes. I've heard there's a bit of a tug of war between pilots who like to "top-off" their tanks beyond that requirement with a few extra tons "just in case" and airlines who discourage the practice because carrying the additional weight is costly. Your cash might represent that extra "topping-off". Expensive to carry ... Under some circumstances, priceless.

http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Pimco’s-Daniel-Ivascyn-on-Staying-Ahead-of-the-Fed-.r1gITMEkrb.html
Since the Barrons article is behind a pay wall......
"Ivascyn’s fund (ticker: PIMIX) is Pimco’s largest actively managed bond fund, with $89 billion in assets and an enviable 99th-percentile ranking over the past five and 10 years. The fund is up 5% this year, versus 3.8% for the average multisector bond fund. Ivascyn has run the fund since its 2007 inception. He recently discussed with Barron’s his investment views and the outlook for the “new neutral,” a phrase that Pimco coined in reference to the current protracted period of unusually low interest rates."

FYI: The wheel of fate has turned, putting a stock-picking legend back on top for the third time in less than a decade in The Wall Street Journal’s Winners’ Circle contest.
The second-quarter 2017 laurels go to Bill Miller, this time at the helm of a different fund—his own Miller Opportunity Trust (LMOPX)—and operating independently from Legg Mason , the firm where he made his name and which he in turn helped make a household name. Mr. Miller and fellow portfolio manager, Samantha McLemore, left Legg Mason last year, but continue to provide investment services to the firm.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-no-1-stock-fund-is-1499652481
M* Snapshot LGOAX: (A Shares)
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LGOAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot LGOAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/lgoax
LGOAX Is Ranked #34 In The (MCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-blend/miller-opportunity-trust/lgoax

FYI: How well will your stock fund hold up in a bear market?
To answer that question, traders and analysts often rely on statistical ways of measuring volatility—the most prominent among them being standard deviation, which tells you how far a series of returns swings from the average over a given period. But such metrics don’t always offer a clear picture of how resilient a fund is likely to be in tough times.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-the-market-declines-two-funds-to-consider-1499652420
M* Snapshot YAFFX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/YAFFX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot YAFFX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/yaffx
YAFFX Is Ranked #151 In The (LCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/amg-yacktman-focused-fund/yaffx
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sequx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sequx
SEQUX Is Ranked #250 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/sequoia-fund/sequx

FYI: The new tech successes driving fund results include Activision Blizzard, Salesforce.com, Micron Technology and Lam Research.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-surprising-reason-for-the-success-of-tech-funds-1499652181

Looking at my tracker, I notice HSGFX currently priced at $6.66. The number 666 is sometimes considered a bad omen - the sign of the beast - by superstitious people. However, if you like buying funds that have been beaten up (expecting a nice bounce) it could be a good omen in this case. :)
The fund is down 7.76% YTD and 15.8% for 1 year.
I believe a lot can be learned by watching various investment styles over time - both those that succeed and those that fail. That's why I track the fund along with a half-dozen or so other funds. Out of fairness, here's Dr. Hussman's latest weekly commentary from July 3: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc170703.htm
In checking Hussman's more successful fund, HSTRX, I found it essentially flat both YTD and for 1 year. That one, as I recall, invests primarily in short-term T-Bills and seeks to enhance return with limited exposure to gold and utilities. The latter 2 often determine where the fund goes. Having a .79% ER, one can understand why it hasn't gained much in the current low interest rate environment.
Disclosure: I once owned both of the funds above, but haven't owned either for at least 10 years.
---
Related - Gold was hot for a couple months recently, rising to near $1280. It's tumbled over the past week and is now around $1215-$1225. Fed-Speak seems to have much to do with its fortunes from time to time.

"Not as expensive as 97-2000" doesn't mean its not overvalued -- just that it is not AS overvalued...
Ed Yardeni's current weekly publication deals exactly with the topic:
https://www.yardeni.com/pub/stockmktperatio.pdf
And yes, the market is NOT as expensive as 97-2000. What relevance is that, exactly? Is there some implicit expectation that the next stock market top MUST get as expensive as the dot-com peak? The market is not going to guarantee a Dot-com valuation for folks.
Trailing P/Es of 25-26 is an expensive market. That statement is simply declarative; its not meant to be predictive. Stock valuations may be at a "permanently high plateau" (like they were in the late 1920's (said tongue in cheek). In the immediate future, they may stay expensive or get more expensive (NOT a prediction!). But those possibilities don't obviate that they are expensive NOW.
I think of it this way: If I am buying (or holding) an expensive asset, what are my future returns likely to be? (Past returns, good or bad, are already "in the bag", and so, are moot.)

@Chinfest, After looking at a comparison at Schwab it was noted that Mindx has 9% holding in N. America. AUM might also be something to look at. I may split 50-50 & invest after a drop. Thanks for pointing these two funds out.
Derf

I think the amount of money to be invested impacts the number of funds as well. Personally, I wouldn't want to invest $1 million in just two funds. I'm sure there are investors who are comfortable with that. I'm not one of them. If it were $25G, I would be fine with two funds. For my own piece of mind, I would spread the wealth around with a high value.

How about splitting 50 / 50 ?
Derf

I was thinking about doing that too, but ideally I would prefer just one fund for a single country investment, rather than "clutter" my portfolio.

How about splitting 50 / 50 ?
Derf

I reviewed MINDX today and wanted to share its performance:

Pretty solid results over a variety of time frames.

http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/winning-mutual-fund-focuses
Virtus KAR Small-Cap Growth Fund (PXSGX) may not be a household name. But it's a top performer. As of Dec. 31, the fund had outperformed the S&P 500 in the previous 12 months, three years, five years and 10 years. Here's how this fund kicks butt with a concentrated portfolio. Right now, it doesn't even half any holdings in four sectors.

It may not be like the dotcom bubble, but with s&p500 p/e ratio between 25 and 26, doesn't look like bargains to me.

Thanks @ Mike & Ol Skeet for getting this back on track. Agree it's a good article. I view most anything financial in the NYT times with a healthy dose of skeptism. They're great at a lot of things - but financial analysis and reporting isn't their forte. To the crux of the issue: I think where you run into problems is (1) trying to formulate a simple one size fits all approach to retirement drawdowns and/or (2) assuming the next 25 years will be like the last 25 years (interest rates, inflation, equity valuations, etc.).
I can't relate to the central question of how to survive "X" number of years on "X" number of dollars invested. Reason: I enjoy both a defined benefit pension with a partial COL rider and also a decent SS income stream. And, supplementary health insurance through retirement plan as well. Conceivably, these would provide for basic living expenses - though it would be a very "spartan" lifestyle without travel or other things that make retirement enjoyable.
In my highly atypical instance, even after taking distributions, retirement savings have roughly doubled over the nearly 20 years since retirement (albeit in nominal dollar terms only). At the same time, more than half of that has now been placed under the Roth umbrella, whereas at the time of retirement none was. Much of the reason for the increase is that the money was left largely undisturbed during the first 10 years.
As far as the article's mention that withdrawals are not linear or equal every year - I couldn't agree more. There have been years when I needed to take a larger sum - say as a sizable down payment on a new car or for unexpected home repairs - and other years when I've needed very little.
I don't envy those without a pension or other solid income stream in retirement. Not everyone would be satisfied with a somewhat spartan lifestyle either. As I look at the markets over the past 10-20 years, I'd not be eager risking a large retirement nest egg with an aggressive approach in retirement. Lots of warning signs IMHO. But, no one really knows. As I said at the start, the problem with these mathematical models is that the next 25 years could be markedly different than the last 25 - as others, notably msf, have tried to explain.

My current brokerage firm suggest that investors keep no more than five percent of their portfolio holdings in cash. Now, I just get a chuckle out of this because it suggest to me that they make more off of a more fully invested portfolio than they do one sitting on a lot of cash (say, 20% to 25%, or perhaps more). For me, holding about twenty to twenty five percent in cash has proved itself more than once during my lifetime during changelling market periods. My investment way has provided me ample cash to enhance my life style plus some extra cash that can be put to work during down market periods. Their way, there is a good chance you'll be selling assets in a down market to generate cash. Remember, their investment policy committee (IPC) works for their firm and what might be in their best interest; but, perhaps not so much yours. Becasue of my larger than their recommended cash holdings, I was asked to sign an acknowledge form that I was investing outside of IPC guidelines. Never signed it ... and, I still today don't intend to. I told them that if my holding of this amount of cash within my portfolio bothered them this much I would simply off load some of it to another holding place. This seemed to put a squelched to their issue with me. If it is their way only ... or the highway ... be prepared to move on. And, they know I will.

FYI: Sports marketplaces aren’t all that different from the investment arena.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=815090

"I'll note that I alone warranted a 375-word rebuke recently."
Show-off!

I'll note that I alone warranted a 375-word rebuke recently. The 3 of you combined can muster only 197 words? Pretty pathetic showing men. :)
Thanks to @msf for the analysis. Hope the personality aspects here don't obscure your contribution.