Hi Johnchisum,
The one-third asset allocation rule is ancient wisdom.
I never checked, but it is reported that the Talmud advices a third portion in Real Estate, in Business, and in Reserve.
It is said that Baron Rothschild kept one-third of his wealth fluid, one-third in Art, and one-third in Real Estate.
Many other one-third rules are offered for simplified asset allocation. In modern times you might think in terms of equal thirds of US mutual funds, International funds, and a Total Bond fund.
A more complex alternate might be to deploy the 1/N rule which means equal parts in each of N major investment categories.
Best Wishes.

Who was the wealthy person or family that espoused the idea of the portfolio being ⅓rd stocks, 1/3rd real estate, and 1/3rd art or fine collectables?

You know what I would do? Instead of blindly giving to charities I would try to directly fix system problems. Find deserving candidates who have run up student debt, interview them, and bail them out.
If I had that kind of money, I would want to see direct impact of my charity.

His time is far more valuable than interviewing student loan candidates, IMO. He can make more money doing what he's doing, and fix more by donating money, than he can doing what you describe.
It would take an immense amount of time, finding, sorting, interviewing and then funding "deserving candidates" to the tune of $1-2B.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097077/000089109215004190/e64194_497.htm
497 1 e64194_497.htm SUPPLEMENT
BlackRock Event Driven Equity Fund
Supplement dated May 13, 2015 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of BlackRock Event Driven Equity Fund (the “Fund”), dated May 8, 2015
The Fund is currently closed to new investors. On or about July 27, 2015, the Fund expects to re-open to new investors.
Shareholders should retain this Supplement for future reference.
PRSAI-EDE-0515SUP

FYI: DoubleLine Capital's first actively managed exchange-traded fund, the SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical ETF, surpassed $500 million in assets in less than three months, according to its administrator on Wednesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/us-investing-doubleline-etf-idUSKBN0NY28Q20150513
M* Snapshot TOTL: http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/TOTL/quote.html

K1s are USUALLY fine and usually no problem with turbotax. There are, however, instances where they are not. See the KMP buyout situation which created a lot of frustration.
I'll also give you another delightful example: Energy Transfer Equity (ETE), which has stakes in a number of different partnerships. So you have to do a K-1 for each of the underlying holdings. That's a fun one (not.) ETE has done really well (on Goldman conviction buy list, $86 tgt), I like management a great deal. If it hadn't been doing as well as it has, I'd consider giving it the boot because that K-1 situation is just nuts.
Other than that, K-1s are never fun to deal with but they're okay. Personally, I own a number of partnerships but I recommend keeping to what you believe are absolute "must haves" - that's going to vary from person-to-person, but my view is really just only focus on your very best ideas in terms of PTP (publicly traded partnerships.) Don't speculate/trade MLPs because you'll end up with a K1 even if you hold it for less than a day.
Ultimately, I've looked for some alternatives instead of going any further into oil partnerships. Inter-Pipeline (IPPLF), which used to be a Canadian partnership, is one example. That's a very interesting company with some overseas exposure and a monthly dividend. Enbridge Income Fund (EBGUF.PK) is not something I own, but that's another example.
Also, in a related note: apparently Blackstone (BX)'s spin-off later this year will not be a partnership.
I also have a LOT in health care and while I've considered a few possible additions, I'm probably done with adding to that.
The other things that I have a lot of are the commodities exchanges and credit card co/financial technology.

Bee yes, it's true what you say about the tax treatment. As for the k-1's, TurboTax handles them easily, automatically in many cases, so I have no issues there although others might. I confess to also holding most of my MLP positions in a Roth IRA account where the k-1's are largely a non issue. UBTI over $1K could make them become an issue some day but as of today I've never seen a positive UBTI figure for any of my holdings much less a total approaching $1K.

If anyone is interesting in a Webinair (May 20th @ 2pm) on the topic of "A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio" register here,
A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio

I wonder, and wondered that about similar type investments for a long, long time. In my case it was specifically centered on 1) energy MLP's

Thanks Mark, but again, I first learned about HC spending time at FundAlarm (MFO's inspiration). Learning continues. Thanks for your contributions.
I have read that MLPs receive special tax treatment that is passed onto the individual owner. This benefit is lost when held in a mutual fund. If this is true then one more reason to own MLP companies outside of an etf or mutual fund. K-1 reporting is the downside in a taxable account. @Scott has talked about K-1 reporting in the past.

@Bee - Wow! Always ahead of the curve you are. Back then it seemed like investments were all about Tech and not so much Health Care. Good move.
I'm still catching up in that regard with the bulk of my assets in Energy related issues who's dividends I use these days to fund Health themes (HQL), REIT's (OHI) or specific companies (GILD).
@LLJB - I wonder, and wondered that about similar type investments for a long, long time. In my case it was specifically centered on 1) energy MLP's e.g. any number of CEF's like KYN and so on and 2) dividend-related funds e.g. SCHD, VIG, HDV etc.. For many I believe it might have to do with the fear of owning an individual stock position(s) vs. the mutual fund construct and possibly having the $$$ to construct such a portfolio. It's a little simpler these days using sites such as Folioinvesting (https://www.folioinvesting.com/folioinvesting/home/?gclid=CMzpkYGTv8UCFRABaQodwBUAMA) where you can build a portfolio pretty cheaply over time but I can still see where it might appear daunting to many. This is not an endorsement for the site as I don't personally use it but I have considered it often and still may go that route to fund my grandchildren's savings accounts.
I made the leap from funds to equities largely because the yields from the funds or CEF's were often less than half of what I could get from owning the companies outright. Granted I stick with primarily blue-chips but then so do the other guys.

Just wondering why anyone would buy LEXCX. With only 21 positions that never change it seems like you could create this fund on your own without incurring the expense ratio and you have more control over any tax consequences of redemptions. I guess if they buy and sell an equal number of shares rather than an equal percentage of each position you might find it more costly to maintain the allocations but because it's a passive portfolio you could also simply assume there are no inflows or outflows and you'd probably end up close.

I've often thought this would be a good way to start as well as end a stock portfolio.
As one ages and distributes their IRAs there is greater likelihood of having a taxable investment account. Owning stock in a taxable account has many advantages over mutual funds. Harvesting tax losses, as you mentioned, is one. Another has to do with estate planning. Passing stocks on to beneficiaries provides the recipient with an additional tax savings. A stock's cost basis resets for the beneficiary at the date of death. Inheriting those same stocks by holding them in LEXCX (or any other fund for that matter) would incur capital appreciation costs (taxes) to your beneficiary. Strange, but true.

Hi Guys,
Most of the time the investment marketplace seems to behave like an erratic bouncing ball. Its erratic returns generate fear and uncertainty for the investing public which translates into panic selling at precisely the wrong time.
Mitigating that bouncing ball is a partially doable task by reducing portfolio returns variability. Asset allocation that fully embraces a broad diversification policy is king in executing this goal. None of this is new stuff. Here is a Link to the classic paper that initiated a host of continuing complimentary studies:
http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v51.n1.1869
Two decades later, one of the original researchers updated his interpretation of that study. Here is a Link to that update:
http://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Hood20yrsLater.pdf
The paper ends with the following summary advice: “Our message today remains the same as before: Carefully consider what goal you are trying to achieve, how important it is to achieve it, and how much risk you are willing to tolerate in pursuing it. Then, create a policy portfolio that reflects that goal and your risk tolerance for the probable outcomes—because executing that policy will have a dominant effect on your success.”
Independently, a recent Vanguard study further emphasizes the benefits of broad diversification. Vanguard expands the data sets to include foreign marketplaces. Here is a Link to that study:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s324.pdf
For 4 international marketplaces, Vanguard concludes that “For investors who held broadly diversified portfolios, asset allocation was the primary driver for return variability.”
Although these generic findings are not new stuff, an individual investor’s access to test the robustness of his asset allocation planning and decisions in a user friendly format is indeed new stuff.
Recently I’ve been emphasizing the advantages of Monte Carlo analyses, especially using a version of that tool on the Portfolio Visualizer website. That website also offers a very nice Back-Testing tool that enables investors to easily explore alternate asset allocations on a side-by-side basis, and, for different time periods. Here is a direct Link to that Back-Testing code:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-allocation
In addition to a benchmark comparison option, the referenced code allows for side-by-side comparisons of 3 additional portfolios simultaneously. The stability of various asset allocations over any timeframe is effortlessly tested with the click of a single starting date input. The summary relative outputs as a function of time are useful for decision making.
One disadvantage of the site is that it only has data for the broad categories of investment options. The site does not offer data for specific mutual funds. I believe that is a minor shortcoming. Individual fund performance returns will hover both above and below the category averages. Statistically, any departures will likely cancel each other out.
I suggest you give this Back-Testing program a few trial runs. It’ll provide some guidance when you’re mulling over some portfolio asset allocation changes. Additionally, it’s fun.
Best Regards.

Just wondering why anyone would buy LEXCX. With only 21 positions that never change it seems like you could create this fund on your own without incurring the expense ratio and you have more control over any tax consequences of redemptions. I guess if they buy and sell an equal number of shares rather than an equal percentage of each position you might find it more costly to maintain the allocations but because it's a passive portfolio you could also simply assume there are no inflows or outflows and you'd probably end up close.

I charted an investment in FCNTX on the day Will Danoff became the funds manager (09/17/1990) vs. LEXCX.

I wanted to indulged your chart a bit further. 1990 was about the time when I first invested in Vanguard Healthcare, VGHCX. Here are LEXCX, FCNTX, and VGHCX over the last 25 years:. All three seem to have great market cycle performance (30ish years).

So now I'm wondering if any of the board's participants, or their parents, own LEXCX.
Edited to add: Just for giggles I charted an investment in FCNTX on the day Will Danoff became the funds manager (09/17/1990) vs. LEXCX. They are different funds but just indulge me here. One of my first IRA investments was in the Contrafund on, or around the time Mr. Danoff took control. I knew precious little about investing or mutual funds other than the diversity aspect. I was intrigued by the 'contra' part and figured what the hell. If only I could have funded is with $10K as M* charts depict other than whatever piddling minimum amount I began with at that time.

I would add IWIRX to the mix. 30 holdings, 14% turnover, a very small asset base for a large blend fund and a great record. Maybe even better, M* doesn't cover it!

On LEXCX: expenses are about 0.51%. Turnover is 0%. The portfolio was set in 1935 and hasn't changed since then except to account for corporate events such as mergers, acquisitions and spin-offs. When there are inflows, the fund (it doesn't even have a manager) buys an equal number of shares of every holding; when there are outflows, it sells an equal number of each.
If my folks had been able to chuck $100 at the fund on the day I was born, it would be worth $34,000 today. An investment in the average LCV fund would have grown to $25,000.
David

It was a good webcast on DSL and DBL; Puerto Rico was way, way less than 1% of the interesting commentary.

Let's create a slightly longer list:
This one has been around the block:
LEXCX - 21 holdings and (edit: 0% turnover...thank you DS)

This is fairly new:
JOHIX - 31 holdings and 60% turnover

Additional Article on the topic:
the-risks-and-rewards-of-concentrated-funds

Do You Own Puerto Rico In Your Muni Fund?
"According to Morningstar almost 70% of municipal bonds mutual funds hold Puerto Rico bonds as of February 6, 2014."
do-you-own-puerto-rico-in-your-muni-fund