"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
[snip]

Let's not conflate trading with the number of funds an investor holds.
They're two different topics.
There has been ample research indicating investors who trade frequently often fare poorly.
You may be familiar with the seminal paper titled “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors” by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean.
Your prior post stated:
"I could never understand why anyone has more than 7-8 funds (they are usually the ones who say, there is no right number). You go over 10 funds and you are over-diversified. What usually happens with over 10 funds? you are not sure and/or you have owned lagging categories for years. You already know that the SP500 beat most funds over 15-20 years so why do you own so many funds? This was my initial start (1995-2000) investing 90+% in VG Total index and the rest in VG growth."
Regardless of your opinion, there isn't an arbitrary number of funds which is optimal for every investor's unique circumstances. A young investor who is risk tolerant and has many years until retirement can reasonably have only a single fund in their portfolio (e.g., Total World Stock Index fund or target-date fund) if they so choose. Many Bogleheads are fond of a three-fund portfolio often comprised of Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX), Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VTIAX), and Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund (VBTLX). This is a good strategy but it may not be right for everyone. Investors with multiple accounts should probably consider fund availability, optimum asset location, tax consequences, risk tolerance, and personal preferences when constructing their portfolios. These considerations can lead to having more funds than you prescribe. Bottom line - there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
The S&P 500 performed very well over the trailing 10-year and 15-year periods.
It was a very different story during the "Lost Decade" (2000-2009) when the S&P 500 basically went nowhere.
Would the average investor with a large S&P 500 position have the fortitude to stick with this investment
during the "Lost Decade" or would they have sold before the S&P 500 recovery started?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to also include foreign stocks and/or investment-grade bonds in the portfolio?

Interesting that no ETFs appear on that comprehensive list @msf listed. That’s what I was searching the web for. I did stumble on 4 or 5 market neutral ETFs that had already closed. And 2 or 3 that were still around.
Does it seem like a high proportion of ETFs fail to last for more than 5 or 6 years? Much greater rate of attrition than mutual funds ISTM. Might be wrong.
GAMNX -16% in 2022 // +39% in 2023. Yup. Sounds market neutral. :)

PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

Thanks for the tip FD.
Uhh - So you’ve been recommending a closed fund to your friends for 10 years? Good Grief.

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
Investing is never about emotions and feelings, it's all about numbers.
What I do has nothing to do with the above question and why I didn't mention it, but it's amazing how posters would not deal with the above.
Roy, PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

OJ +1

+1. @Roy.
*************
Well, yes, I might get cut, but it won't be because I'm trying to catch the knife in mid-air. Just trying to keep things simple. Wifey prefers that I continue to move more from tax-sheltered to taxable. Not so many rules and hoops to jump through, after I'm gone. THAT will be a SLOW process, though. As much as you can depend upon anything, it looks like neither of us is going anywhere permanently for several years, anyhow. (Next birthday= 70. Hers will be age 51.)

Before we happened into PRWCX toward the end of 2006, we were invested directly through 8 funds and 4 different fund companies which covered LCG, LCV, SCG, SCV, real-estate and a couple bond funds. I knew nothing about DG at the time other than he and Arricale had been on the job for less than 6 months. We were 43 & 39 years old but it was very apparent my wife had no interest being involved in our investments, so I was looking to simplify in case something ever happened to me. Most advisors would never have recommended PRWCX by itself for investors our age. But, it has worked for us along with our personal high savings rate.
6 years ago we met with a CFP we know who helps advise >$10 billion at the firm he works for and he told us not to change a thing, as we were well on our way to meeting our retirement goals and that his annual advisory fee could not be justified to take over our accounts.
I won't recommend others investing as we have largely chosen to in the last 17 years, but it has worked for us. At ages 60 & 56 current Monte Carlo simulations have us at 99% success rates if we both retire today.
We've been fortunate to work our whole adult lives, live modestly, and to be vigilant about saving and investing which has also allowed us to give regularly to charitable organizations and individuals in need. For all this I take little credit other than to thank God for the opportunities we've been afforded and been able to take advantage of.
Wishing all a wonderful, peaceful and healthy 2024. I don't contribute much to this site, but have learned so much....thank you.

@Crash- Surely this thread must hold the all-time MFO record for the longest time in continuous activity, and likely a number of other things too: for instance, the number of participating MFO members:
AndyJ December 2023
Art May 2022
BaluBalu December 2023
Baseball_Fan December 2023
bee December 2022
BennyB January 2023
BenWP December 2023
carew388 July 2023
catch22 July 2023
chang July 2023
Crash December 2023
davfor October 2022
DavidF January 2023
davidrmoran December 2023
davidsherman October 2023
Dennis Baran August 2023
Derf November 2023
Devo June 2023
dtconroe April 2023
finder September 2022
fred495 March 2022
golub1 July 2023
hank December 2023
JD_co November 2023
johnN November 2023
JonGaltIII May 2022
Junkster September 2023
larryB September 2022
Level5 November 2023
lynnbolin2021 May 2022
Mark August 2023
MikeM December 2023
MikeW August 2023
Mona November 2023
Observant1 12:51PM
Old_Joe December 2023
PopTart December 2023
PRESSmUP December 2023
Puddnhead November 2023
racqueteer November 2023
rforno December 2023
Roy February 2023
sma3 November 2023
stayCalm December 2022
Sven December 2023
Tarwheel December 2023
WABAC December 2023
wxman123 September 2022
yogibearbull July 2023
Congratulations!!
:) :) :)

Among the SC funds that I track, FDSCX, Fidelity Small Cap Selector, is among the leaders for every time period going out 15 years. It’s been a steady, reliable performer — unusual for SC funds, which tend to be streaky. I prefer SC blend funds for that reason.

things are great --- except in general
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/opinion/economy-presidential-election.html

- @msf said, ”For example, it lists "market neutral". That hasn't been around since April 2021”
I tried to dig up a list of market neutral equity funds (across the internet) the other day to look over. Darned hard to find any. Maybe they’ve gone ouf of fashion?

Somewhat the opposite. My next sentence was: "[The basic M* screener] doesn't offer the replacement categories: equity market-neutral, event-driven, and relative value arbitrage."
M* found the market neutral category large enough with enough variation among its funds to divide it into three different categories. The funds that M* now classifies as equity market-neutral are:
1. QMNIX / QMNNX / QMNRX
2. COGIX / COGMX
3. CAPOX
4. BDMAX / BDMCX / BDMIX / BGCKX
5. DECMX / DECIX
6. GAMNX / QQMNX
7. GONIX
8. GUMAX / GUMCX / GUMNX / GUMPX
9. JMNAX / JMNCX / JMNSX
10. MNWAX / MNWBX / MNWCX / MNWIX / MNWRX / MNWSX / MNWTX / MNWUX / MNWZX
11. OTTRX / OTCRX
12. PTFAX / PFATX
13. SMNAX / SMNIX
14. VMNIX / VMNFX
15. CBHAX / CBHCX / CBHIX / CBHMX
Since this is a new category, you can't use the basic screener to find them. But you can use the M* basic screener (via AOL) to see that the Communications category is smaller, with just 30 share classes. Unfortunately, that version of the M* basic fund screener doesn't tell you what the funds are - no names or tickers. Good for counting the number of funds in older categories, but not especially useful for finding funds.

The right number of funds is what you feel comfortable with.
I have 12 individual stocks, 10 CEFs, 5 ETFs, and 6 Mutual funds...up 9% in 2023.

In the meantime, M* has its own chatbot "Mo". It is based on ChatGPT/OpenAI running on Azure/MSFT.
While general Q&A chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, Claude) may be fun, these application specific chatbots have better commercial future.
https://newsroom.morningstar.com/newsroom/news-archive/press-release-details/2023/Mo-an-AI-Chatbot-Powered-by-Morningstar-Intelligence-Engine-Debuts-in-Morningstar-Platforms/default.aspx
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mo-an-ai-chatbot-powered-by-morningstar-intelligence-engine-debuts-in-morningstar-platforms-301822115.html

My own opinion on the current holdings in a managed ETF, not sure it means to much other than looking backwards. Maybe CALF has avoided financial for now but could make it a high percentage going forward. Who knows. You have to have faith in the management and process more so than the current holdings, I think. Same for any ETF or mutual fund.
One interesting statistic on CALF and AVUV. CALF has 100 holdings. 73% of those holdings are also in AVUV which has 748 holdings. Obviously, they like many of the same SC stocks, but CALF is more concentrated.
FWIW, I've held QRSVX at different percentages for many years. A conservative SC that does well over time. I've more recently in the past couple months added both CALF and AVUV to my SC holdings.

“ … there is plenty of research to prove that indexes and less trading = better performance.”
HA - So you’re going to change the topic now? I’ll make three observations:
- First, I agree that indexes have outperformed active management for a long time.
- Second, I agree that less trading benefits performance and more trading usually hurts it.
- Third, as a percentage of board posts, FD ranks right up there in terms of trades. Around 10% of all his posts mention buys or sells (a fair estimate I think). The difference between FD and most here is that his trades are always referenced in the past - sometimes having occured weeks or months earlier. And, from what I can tell, those posts never mention specific funds,
”Why stop at 15? 30 must be better”
First, you’re insinuating here that someone finds 10 or 15 holdings “better.” It’s not about “better.” It’s about someone’s overall approach to investing. If 5 serves your portfolio positioning, that’s fine. At one time I carried 15-20 holdings, including small allocations to some pretty speculative mining stocks. Due mainly to age, I’ve dumped those small positions and consolidated into a CEF that provides exposure to them with less risk. And, for simplicity’s sake, I’m always evaluating the possibility / desirability of consolidating further.
You might recall @Old_Skeet who used to post here. He wrote a nice weekly summary of his portfolio and his trades. Sometimes he published the entire portfolio. Often it had 30 or more holdings. That’s what fit his needs. Not my cup of tea or yours, but it worked for him.

The number of accounts is an excuse. I have 10 accounts(2 brokerages, each with Roth, Rollover for my wife and me + joint/taxable account), but still only 2 funds. Yes, I buy one fund for several accounts. When I used to have 401K, it was usually all in SP500 or US tot index. I used my brokerage accounts for the rest. These 401k choices were mostly indexes anyway.
2 giants Buffett and Bogle have been promoting 1 to 3 funds and indexes. I understand if someone wants others, 5-7 funds are plenty enough.
Sure, you can do well with 15 funds (or refuse to admit it), but that is the minority, it's just more complicated and there is plenty of research to prove that indexes and less trading = better performance.
Why stop at 15? 30 must be better.

- I looked at M*’s stock price and it’s risen this year - to my surprise. I’m thinking eventually AI is going to take a bite out of their income. You should be able to pull up all the info. they provide - and even more - tailored to your specific needs using AI. Yes, I’m sure they will use AI themselves to provide better service. But, just my guess, that eventually it will ding their viewership and profits.
- Stumbled across a Schwab page on a fund I was looking at recently. Appears to be an excellent detailed source of data.
- @msf said, ”For example, it lists "market neutral". That hasn't been around since April 2021”
I tried to dig up a list of market neutral equity funds (across the internet) the other day to look over. Darned hard to find any. Maybe they’ve gone ouf of fashion? Gosh - couldn’t have been more than 20-25 years ago that I owned one.

"Further, someone with 3 different accounts (taxable, Roth, Traditional IRA) might find reasons to hold more funds than someone with just one type of account."

Exactly!
It may be difficult or potentially counter-productive for investors with multiple account types
(e.g., 401K, traditional IRA, Roth IRA, taxable, HSA, 529) to hold the "right number" of funds
regardless of what some self-proclaimed experts state. Having too many funds can be detrimental
(e.g., diworsification, increased portfolio maintenance), but there isn't an arbitrary number of funds
which is optimal for every investor's unique situation.

You guys have whetted my appetite on the subject of “right number” of funds. My simple math tells me that 10 funds, each averaging 10% a year, should produce the same return as 5 funds, each averaging 10% a year - or one fund for that matter. Further, someone with 3 different accounts (taxable, Roth, Traditional IRA) might find reasons to hold more funds than someone with just one type of account.
I don’t know about “research”? Everybody and his brother on the internet seems to have an opinion on this. But for starters I found this linked article interesting. The author suggests up to 12 funds might be the “right” number for long-time investors with lots of accumulated wealth, while 6 might be a better number for younger / newer investors, This isn’t likely to change my mind, or Mike’s or FD’s or anyone else who’s weighed in. Just something to think about / discuss if so inclined.

This still works but not enough criteria(https://screen.morningstar.com/fundselectoraol.html)
Thanks!
Worth noting is that M* hasn't maintained its basic screener (its "official" one as well as this one) for years. This can be seen in its selection of fund categories.
For example, it lists "market neutral". That hasn't been around since April 2021, so a search on this category turns up empty. And it doesn't offer the replacement categories: equity market-neutral, event-driven, and relative value arbitrage.
For 93.567+% of investors, this doesn't matter. Or more accurately, it might matter only if you're searching for one of the new categories. If a category was merged into an older existing one (e.g. long-short credit into nontraditional bond), you'll still find funds, but under a different category.
Here are the category changes:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/introducing-new-alternative-morningstar-categories