Keep in mind that fpacx will allocate to a higher percentage in stocks when the perceived value is there ... not sure it matters anymore with fiscal and monetary inputs but for certain the market is at elevated valuations ...

I got your point.
The market has been at 'elevated valuations' for almost all of my 55y investing, except for that late '70s / early '80s dip and that short plunge 15y ago. I gave up worrying, though I am known to sell when I (totally imperfectly) deem things crazy-frothy.
Now it's well over double p/e (shiller anyway) its median of 16.
There's little helping someone who cannot stick with it, imo. I don't think 2/3 cash or whatever is it. Not saying stock prices aren't way high.

@Observant1 - Thanks again for the post.

I didn't have a choice if I wanted to have money. I started investing at age 38 in 100% equities. I kept it at 90+% until the first million. Then, learn a lot about unique bond funds and by the time I retired it was at 90+% in bond funds.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

+1
It’s difficult to draw a line in the sand (or concrete). But if you’re under 40, dollar-cost averaging in and planning to work at least 20 more years … put it in a good low cost growth fund and let it rip. No more than 3 funds I’d say. You can withstand the +35% and -35% market whipsaws with that kind of time horizon.
I get the feeling from our friend @Joyes that his situation is different - probably an older investor.

Not sure it's nuts going forward...looking backwards sure after the fact I could see your point... you're not getting mine.. it's that if the less experienced or younger investor sees a drawdown that has legs they will bail and lose the compounding effect.
Compounding positive returns is what creates wealth.
While we're dancing and seeing how most of us are old enough to collect social security..what day you about a younger investor allocating say 10 to 20% to Bitcoin?
Note that many younger investors are much more open to the concept. I guess you could argue it's done a better job keeping up with inflation the last couple of years

Thank you for the summary, @Observant1. In more recent years, we found ourselves using more ETFs (mainly passive funds). The new active managed stocks and bonds are attractive vehicles with lower expensive ratios without minimum investment, and we have added them too.

what no one has mentioned yet is what kind of career track/profession is @joyes in?
If they are a physician, plumber, electrician etc..their work path is more "somewhat guaranteed in the future" so they might be more aggressive in their portfolio. If they are a real estate agent, programmer, where their future earnings might be lumpy or impacted negatively by AI, they might consider being way less aggressive in their portfolio.
I have personally worked with many young(er) colleagues, many starting out their careers, in their early to mid-20's and have found without a doubt (and I am more certain of this as anything I have ever posted on this site, political views included (Ha!) as I've seen it first hand many times) is that if you suggest to them "oh, you are young and have many years to invest, be aggressive, 90-100% in stocks", at the first draw down of over 15% they will bail and go all to cash. To someone without a lot of money, $20k going down to $13k is not something they are going to just watch happen.
Therefore, my suggestion for consideration and NOT ADVICE, would be to stay 50/50 in cash/Tbills and the other half in something like FPACX FPA Crescent..a fund that has been around a long time and is not super aggressive.
Don't gamble, don't overdo the booze, stay away from the floozies/bar flies, go home after work, don't go to the bars, stay fit, think for yourself, don't smoke, save at least 15% of your paycheck every pay day, don't care what others think or post on social media.
Good Luck and Good Health to ALL,
Baseball Fan

Thanks @Observant1
Here's an interesting article on a previous week's guest (Bitcoin Goes Mainstream):

Given crypto’s extreme volatility, instead of sourcing from broad equities, an investor could pull from the riskiest areas of the equity sleeve like innovative growth companies. One might assume that the cryptocurrencies have a higher correlation to riskier stocks. However, bitcoin and ether’s correlation to the broad growth index from July 2020 through June 2024 is similar to the broad global index, ranging from 0.33 to 0.82, so this avenue likely wouldn’t result in a different outcome.
Bitcoin and ether’s galactic returns may be compelling to investors, but their volatility can have a colossal impact on a standard 60/40 portfolio, and diversifying within crypto still leads to a heightened risk profile. Their newfound accessibility through ETFs has many investors eager to add one or both cryptocurrencies to their portfolios, but one must be aware of how they change the risk composition

are-two-cryptos-better-than-one-6040-portfolio?

FD said, “… in the last 10 years.”
To quote Regan, ”There you go again!”

dunno who Regan is, but is anything FD1k said untrue? BND sucks and has sucked majorly.
never bought the notion of diversification past a point.
an old and very tired argument. details, as he says.

RSPA started trading 8 days ago. It is based on RSP Equal Weight ETF. It uses an option income strategy that should generate 9% plus yearly income. Dividends are paid monthly. Expense ratio is 29 basis points. This is a balance as many of us have a good amount of tech holdings. Tech and Communication Services amount to 18% of the portfolio.
Comments are appreciated.

As mutual funds mark their 100th anniversary do they still work for investors?
Answers from Morningstar’s mutual fund maven, Russ Kinnel.
https://wealthtrack.com/as-mutual-funds-mark-their-100th-anniversary-do-they-still-work-for-investors/
MFS created Massachusetts Investors' Trust in 1924 as the first open-end mutual fund.
Russ Kinnel discusses the mutual fund industry along with ETFs.
Mutual Fund Advantages
better for less-liquid areas like high-yield, muni bonds, EM, and small-caps
ETF Advantages
more tax efficient
can be traded all day (excessive trading can be detrimental)
Big fund companies are in a really strong position.
Mr. Kinnel is not concerned that big fund companies (Vanguard, Blackrock, Fidelity)
are becoming larger on an absolute or relative basis.
Outstanding managers in equities, bonds, or niche areas
(high yield was mentioned) will also be in fine shape.
The biggest threat to the mutual fund industry is for mediocre active fund shops
which try to offer something for everyone but aren't great at anything.
Actively managed ETFs are a growth area which will experience more innovation.
Mr. Kinnel is not a fan of crypto ETFs.
Kinnel's one investment for a long-term diversified portfolio
was Janus Henderson Small Cap Value (JDSAX).

FD said, “… in the last 10 years.”
To quote Regan Reagan, ”There you go again!”

Diversification by itself is too generic, which is why I made my point.
So again, if you are diversifying in just RE, stocks, CEFs, commodities. They are not guaranteed to be better than SPY.
I remember so many posters quoting Merriman, saying your stocks must be diversified, just to come short in the last 15 years.
The next 10 years can be different than the last. I don't care what happened 50 years ago; I only care what the next years will do.
Basically, diversification is just a buzzword; the devil is in the details.
Example: If you invested in one of the most recommended bond funds, the US total bond index, VBTLX=BND, it made 1.5% annually in the last 10 years. The performance matches MM with no volatility, see (chart). BND has been a pretty bad choice, IMO.

FD - You misread my sentence. I said ”after 40-50 years”. PRWCX did not even exist 50 years ago.. David Giroux was 1 year old at the time.
Diversification means having different asset types - like stocks, real estate, bonds, cash, commodities, precious metals and non-dollar currencies
Diversification also includes investment styles like growth, value, momentum, technical based, risk-premia, market neutral, long-short, options based, and several others.
Diversification also includes geographic area (ie domestic, international, regional).
Diversification also includes instrument type like OEFs, CEFs, ETFs, stocks, bonds, collectables, hard assets.
Within bonds or bond funds diversification means owning a range of credit quality (from AAA down to C-). It also includes a variety of years-to-maturity & duration.
How can you say that a combination of several of the above (pick 6-8) over 50 years would have beaten the S&P or would have presented a higher overall year-to-year risk profile?

@hank

Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.

The above is a myth. All you have to do is see the performance in the last 15 years of SPY compared to SPY+IWN+EEM or compared to PRWCX. Both PRWCX+SPY have better performance and lower volatility = higher Sharpe ratio. When US LC doing well it's difficult to beat them.
See results (link).

Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.

You have just proved my point. Did diversification in other stock categories help you?
The only true diversification is thru bonds, but again, it depends on the holdings.

Nicely put @hank +1

“… tips on how to diversify my holdings in order to increase my portfolio over time.”
Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.
But, is the above realistic?
Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.
How would you react 10-12 months into the above saga with your portfolio down 35% from the previous year’s peak and the media ablaze with horror takes of loss and predictions of doom?
By a strange quirk of math, the % gain needed to get back to “break-even” is greater than the % lost. If your portfolio falls by 25% in one year you’ll need a 33% gain the following year to get back to break-even. If you lose 50% of your portfolio you’ll need a 100% return to get back to your old level.
Just food for thought.
All the recommendations in this thread are excellent. Putting a portfolio together is a very personal thing. No “one-size” fits all. My only “tip” would be to become a regular Barron’s reader. No single publication has done more to help me invest over the past 50 years. It’s not glamorous. It’s not really about mutual funds. And the articles are anything but consistent. You’ll read “bulls” and “bears” in the same issue. But it will get you thinking about money … money and risk.
Added Thought …
I like looking at model portfolios. T Rowe Price is noted for being a good asset allocator.
This LINK will take you to one of their web pages and a discussion of allocation, complete with pie charts. I have one minor gripe. That is they don’t include commodities in these sketches. While they can sometimes jump up and bite you, I think having 2%-5% in commodities / precious metals is a pretty good idea.

Welcome @Joyes!
Please tell us the following:
1. Your age and when you plan to retire
2. If this is the majority of your investment assets, or if you have anything held anywhere else (most people have the majority of their investments in their 401k/work retirement account especially when first getting started)
3. How much you hold (as a percentage of the total in each fund)
4. What your risk tolerance is (are you ok with being down 20% at various times and will you stick with the same plan, or sell out and go more conservative?)
5. No need to mention dollar amounts, as this is a public online forum (ie, to protect yourself).
6. Thanks in advance!

I have been nibbling on bits and pieces of things that I own that are down big that day (recently a share here and there of GOOG, NVDA, LRCX, ASML, etc.). Last two days, bought a handful of shares of EW (it dropped from near $100 to $50’s yesterday), DXCM (similarly almost cut in half today), and SAIA (down $20-50 today). The first two are new positions, and tiny positions because I am a chicken haha. SAIA was an add.
Trimmed LLY down to 2 shares (should have done that $100 ago), as others are jumping on the weight loss bandwagon and will have better drugs (kind of like PFE’s Viagra was first, but later drugs were “better”). Read in a comment section on SA that a retired pharma salesman feels GLP-1s and the like will soon become like statins (basically commoditized and generic) due to their widespread health benefits. Also have added to other semi names over recent days (just a share or two at a time bc of my lack of confidence)—ARM, AMD, NVDA, etc.
In my mutual fund only account (cannot add money to this, but it’s a former 403b with current employer that migrated from Prudential to Fidelity), I have been adding in $100 increments to whatever is down. PRWCX remains my biggest holding in that account at >20%.
I’m probably too “growthy” for this current market, but then days like today happen and balances jump more. But down 5% or more in most of my/family accounts (from July peak).

Empower Personal Dashboard is a browser app, there is nothing to download to PC or Mac. It also has decent Android and iOS versions (I use both but the mobile apps are not full equivalents of browser)
https://www.empower.com/personal-investors/financial-tools
https://www.empower.com/signup-v1
If one is not going to use the account aggregation feature and use it in 100% manual mode, makes sense to remain anonymous but keep in mind that Empower requires 2FA so you can't be 100% anonymous with a disposable e-mail address (unless you have a throw-away mobile number of course!)