BTW, Scott McNealy (69) has been laying low & spending quiet time with family, friends and personal hobbies. After he left as the CEO of Sun Micro in 2006 at age 52, and its Board in 2010 at age 56, he dabbled with some startups, but nothing came of those.
Interesting that Vinod Khosla recruited 28-yr old Scott to Sun Micro in 1982, and VK still remains very active in venture-capital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McNealy

@sma3, it's below.

Here is the taxable. I'm just looking at the top ten holdings on the M* quote page. I might get to the IRA later.
Ticker, portfolio weight, holdings
DIVO 4.97, Microsoft 5.56
CSGZX 1.02, Microsoft 5.10, Apple 5.07, Alphabet 4.75,
DODGX 12.74, Microsoft 2.62, Alphabet 2.54
FSCSX .98, Microsoft 23.37, Alphabet 2.79,
POSKX 3.31, Microsoft 2.93
TDV .95, Microsoft 2.9
Few here should be surprised that I won't be trying to work through the math on what this adds up to. :)
FWIW: As far as the Mag 7 goes, only Microsoft and Nvidia count as tech companies in my view. Whatever percentage of Amazon's biz comes from their cloud operations can be thrown in as well.
I look at Apple as a consumer product company, Tesla as a car company, and Alphabet and Meta as media deliverers of advertising. I am aware that's not the common view of these companies.
The only one I seek to minimize is Tesla. Who remembers the Duryea Brother's Motor Wagon Company? China is gearing up to bury Tesla. Apple is another with China problems.
I laugh at ESG funds that include Amazon, but I don't seek to minimize it.

Respecting @stillers request we start a new thread to discuss NVDA etc here goes
My favorite Dot.com quote from Scott McNeely CEO of SUN
"At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?"
NVDA Price to Revenue is three or four times SUNW then
This quote is from the Felder report
https://thefelderreport.com/2017/10/26/what-were-you-thinking/
I would post the stock chart image if I knew how. It is in the link. ( at 72 I must admit I am a bit technologically challenged)
Bottom line: "a chart of Sun Micro from 1996 to 2006. It started around $5 ran up to that $64 Scott mentions and then fell right back to $5. And you would think this might serve as a cautionary tale for investors today."

@David_Snowball, this shows that any single statistics doesn't tell much.
Correlation only tells how well 2 data series move in some "direction"; but the extent of the moves may be quite different. So, the high correlation between US Moderate-Allocation FPACX and EM G&I SIGIX may be due to global factors such as interest rates, dominance of large-caps, etc. Also note the higher correlation values for more recent periods.
BEFORE I dug deeper, I compared the correlation data from MFO Premium and PV, and those MATCH perfectly (as expected). In the table below, the values are for cross correlation r of SIGIX with FPACX (r = 1).
Period, MFO, PV
Life, 0.80, 0.79
10 Yr, 0.80, 0.80
5 Yr, 0.90, 0.90
3 Yr, 0.87, 0.87
1 Yr, 0.95, 0.95
Various MPT statistics are related, so,
SD/SDbenchmark = beta/R,
where, SD = standard deviation, R = correlation with benchmark. Only SD is independent of the benchmark used.
Over Life, 01/2013-12/2023, from PV
LINK https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5DgiftUZoWaQZlFGkuQurH
Fund, SD, beta, R^2, R
FPACX, 11.83, 0.73, 82.46, 0.91
SIGIX, 15.38, 0.80, 58.19, 0.76
VFINX, 14.75, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
Even if we didn't know what these funds were, it would be hard to miss that they are quite different.

@hank and @Observant1,
Without the Magnificent Seven, the 493 stocks in S&P500 are doing so so and the smaller caps are trailing considerably. So where are the opportunities today in this high valuation environment ?
How long can this goes on without a pullback? Here is a podcast from Schwab’s Kathy Jones and Liz Ann Sonders on current market environment. Comments reveal more on the quality of earnings.
https://schwab.com/learn/story/earnings-season-high-demand-corporate-bonds
For now we not adding more stocks but we maintain a healthy allocation to both stocks and bonds. Cash is building up as T bills mature.

GSIHX was mentioned in Morningstar FundInvestor (February 2024).
"Led by manager Rajiv Jain, Goldman Sachs GQG
Partners International Opportunities has continued to
build upon its strong record. Over the 12 months
ended January 2024, the fund’s 20.6% return crushed
the MSCI ACWI ex USA Index’s 5.9% return. The
fund’s performance ranked in the top decile of its
foreign large-growth Morningstar Category in
calendar years 2022 and 2023, a rare feat considering
the drastically different market environments."

Thanks @Observant1
And I wasn’t predicting an immediate precipice. or drawing a direct parallel to 2000. Odds are these stocks will continue to move a lot higher before something breaks. Possibly for years. And it should be noted that even folks who bought tech funds at the top in 2000 made out just fine if they held on for the next 15 years.

Here are my respective allocations (Note: I only have one OEF that does NOT have at least one Mag 7 holding), but I'm still about 3% UNDER the VTSAX Total:
AAPL 3.5%
AMZN 3.0%
GOOGL 3.8%
META 1.0%
MSFT 6.0%
NVDA 3.3%
TSLA 0.5%
Total 21.2%
Here are my respective allocations without my two outlier positions of FSELX and GOOGL, which in Total are notably LOWER than the VTSAX Total:
AAPL 3.5%
AMZN 3.0%
GOOGL 2.6%
META 1.0%
MSFT 6.0%
NVDA 2.1%
TSLA 0.5%
Total 18.8%
NOTE: To make these comparisons apples-to-apples with VTSAX, an all stock OEF, the two lists of my Mag 7 allocations use the amount of stocks in my portfolio as the denominator. And IMO that makes a lot more sense as all of us have varying Stock/Bond/Cash allocations.

To normalize after removing FSELX and GOOGL, shouldn't you reduce the denominator by the amount of stocks you've removed from your portfolio?
To illustrate with a simplistic example:
start with a portfolio of just two stocks:
AAPL $100 (50%)
GOOGL $100 (50%)
Total portfolio stock amount $200
remove GOOGL, leaving just AAPL:
AAPL $100 (100%)
Total portfolio stock amount $100
Reverse engineering your portfolio from the figures above, and noting that NVDA is 23.69% of FSELX, we see that ...
NVDA dropped from 3.3% to 2.1% of the original stock portfolio, a decline of 1.2%. So the part of NVDA coming from FSELX constituted 1.2% of the original portfolio. Since NVDA is 23.69% of FSELX, then FSELX constituted 1.2%/23.69% of the original portfolio. That's 5.07% of your total original stock portfolio. So taking out FSELX reduces that portfolio by 5.07%.
GOOGL dropped from 3.8% to 2.6%, a drop of 1.2%. So we should subtract another 1.2% of the stock portfolio. That's a total reduction of 6.27%.
Now, without FSELX and GOOGL, we can divide the new percentage figures by (1-6.27%) or 93.73%.
The total percentage of the new portfolio becomes 18.8%/93.73% = 20%. A modest improvement over 21.2%, but not a major shift. Notably, your OEFs ex-FSELX have a larger percentage of MSFT than does VTSAX.

@Crash, on web search, I found 2 numbers for GQG:
Common (754) 218 5500 https://gqg.com/contact-us/
Less common (866) 362 8333 https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gqg-475c
The number you mentioned has 1 digit off. It's "362", not "372".

Thanks, yogi.
I guess someone needs to get their shit together, and correct that. LOL. They're not paying me. And I'm done trying to figure it out. I clicked on the two links you posted. The same erroneous number comes up on both for me: 866.372.8333.
(WTF, eh?)

I won’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine, I simply shared an episode from years ago, Personally, I’m standing clear. Lots of other places to invest. It’s your money to do what you want with. A year ago folks were salivating all over about 5% money market funds following a 18% fall in the S&P and a drop of 33% on the NASDAQ the year before. I thought that the clamor for cash was a bit excessive as well.

"The NASDAQ did not again rise to its 2001 peak until 15 years later”
I wonder how many of the stocks in the NASDAQ at it's 2001 peak are in it today.

I stay as far away as I can from them.
Dot-com bubble of 1999-2000
“During the late 1990s, the values of internet-based stocks rose sharply. As a result, the technology-dominated NASDAQ Composite Index (NASDAQINDEX:^|XIC) surged from 1,000 points in 1995 to more than 5,000 in 2000. But in early 2001, the dot-com stock bubble started to burst. The NASDAQ peaked at 5,048.62 points on March 10. The index would go on to plummet by 76.81% until it reached a low of 1,139.90 points on Oct. 4, 2002. The primary cause of this crash was overvalued internet stocks. Many investors speculated that dot-com companies - even those without revenues - would one day become extremely profitable. As a result, they poured money into the sector, driving up the valuation of every company with "dot-com" in its name. The stock market bubble burst when the Federal Reserve Board tightened its monetary policy, constraining the flow of capital. The NASDAQ did not again rise to its 2001 peak until 15 years later”
Source
I have vivid memories of that period. Wasn’t pretty for those that had drunk the Kool Aid.
Most dangerous words in investing: “This time it’s different …”

@Crash, on web search, I found 2 numbers for GQG:
Common (754) 218 5500 https://gqg.com/contact-us/
Less common (866) 362 8333 https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gqg-475c
The number you mentioned has 1 digit off. It's "362", not "372".

One thing I didn't mention in the portfolio story, by the way, was the correlation matrix that I ran through MFO Premium. It did a 56 month matrix since that's the age of the youngest fund.
Only two funds have a correlation of 0.9, and no one is above that. I never would have guessed the two closest: FPA Crescent and Seafarer Overseas. I checked three time frames and the two were close to 0.9 in each.
The consistent second correlation is FPA Crescent and Leuthold Core, typically in the upper 80s. I've asked Chip to play with the data in Excel a bit.
For what interest that holds.

@crash, for the hell of it, I tried calling 1 (754)-218-5500, the number on the website you linked. It went through, no problem.

Weird.
The number that appears TO ME on the page I linked is:866.372.8333.
"Not a working number," says the recording. Anyhow, if they're making it so difficult for me to talk to someone, I'm already done with them.
I have paperwork coming from Weitz. Already spoke to them.

Thanks Yogi. People seem to love or hate the fund in its various guises. Morningstar takes aim at it for any number of reasons … Franklin’s Desai in this year’s Barron’s Roundtable recommends it as a top pick. (obviously a biased source ). What she said in Barron’s:
Desai: - ”I will stick with the Franklin Income fund, which I have recommended in the past. It has a 12-month yield of 5.66% and has paid dividends for 70 years. The fund invests across multiple asset classes. Its current equity allocation, 35%, is among the lowest in its history, and tilted to value names that have lagged behind the broader market. That could provide upside potential.”
It’s a weird fund in that it seems to have a risk / reward profile closer to an equity fund than an “income” fund. About 30% equities at present and 65% bonds. The bonds appear evenly split between investment grade and BBB and below.
Added: Not a recommendation. But before buying the OEF discussed above, I’d take a look at less than 1-year old INCM. Same managers. Very similar allocation. ER much lower at .38%

@crash, for the hell of it, I tried calling 1 (754)-218-5500, the number on the website you linked. It went through, no problem.

Franklin has 6 classes - A, A1, Adv, C, R, R6.
For Franklin Income - FKIQX, FKINX, FRIAX, FCISX, FISRX, FNCFX
Franklin RENAMED the old class A as A1 and then closed A1 to most investors in 09/2018. The new class A was started in 09/2018, so general retail investors now have to buy FKIQX; it is also no-load/NTF at Fido and Schwab.
But there may be a problem in finding data for FKIQX as its inception is only 09/2018. Some services substitute/fill-in prior record by using another fund class, but not everybody does that.
@Bud used FKINX for PV run, I used FISRX for StockCharts (that is the only class it recognized*). Besides minor differences in fees, they are the same Franklin Income fund. So, -30.5% decline in 2008 if verified from 2 sources - PV and StockCharts.
*StockCharts doesn't recognize all fund classes, and the trick is to figure out which class is recognized by searching on fund name, not ticker.

Initiated new position in BIZD and ETRN in my income (and some growth) portfolio.
Shifted some stuff around to consolidate positions a bit as well, but nothing major.

Ron,
ETRN is an interesting midstream co. M* FV is about 50% above current price, though its FV estimate is marked as highly uncertain. One thing that caught my eye in M* report is that they give a “poor” grade for capital allocation - I have to look into this.
Is this a trade or a long term hold buy? Anything you are able to share why you chose this company would be appreciated. Thanks.

M* doesn't factor into my thinking. This just seemed like an interesting play on a new pipeline (not many of them) due to open soon that could easily be snapped up by another larger player in the area (eg, WMB). If that happens, sure, I will 'sell on the news' whenever (or if) that happens as I do whenever a merger is announced on something I hold. Otherwise will be happy to watch, maybe trade around it, and presumably pocket a solid dividend along the way.