There are no hard and fast rules for minimum and maximum fund positions.
I agree with much of the info stated in the prior posts.
It's more important to focus on risk and diversification.
An investor can achieve good results owning only a target-date fund or a global allocation fund.
I think minimum fund exposure should be ≥ 5% since smaller positions will not be impactful.
Having too many funds often leads to "diworsification".
An individual investor shouldn't need to hold more than 12 - 15 funds in most circumstances.
Less is often more...

+1
One “hidden danger”, I suspect, of owning only 1 or 2 funds is that it might be easy for some (not particularly well informed) investors to to get into a perpetual habit of selling one or both of those after an extended period of underperformance (umm … maybe after 6-12 months) and moving into “better performing” funds. While that might seem like a good idea at the moment, longer term it’s very detrimental to returns, as all funds will have both hot streaks and cooler ones.
The above problem is not confined to just 1 and 2 fund portfolios. But it’s probably easier to become unnerved / stressed out over a holding when it’s 50% of your assets than when it’s 5-10%..

The rule of thumb of 4-5% per holding is for individual stocks.
Most funds are already diversified but some are not. Unusually, the LC-growth index has become nondiversified (see 1st link below). Also, active funds may be concentrated in some areas/sectors by their managers. Sector funds are obviously concentrated in respective sectors. Fund-of-funds (including target-date funds, robo-advisor funds, 529 funds, etc) are quite diversified. So, considerations for funds are a bit different.
Formal definition of a diversified fund is that 75% of the should have individual holdings within 5% (see 2nd link). This old definition was to prevent funds as being used to cash pools or as controlling entities, but now is also being used for funds that purposely keep over 5% position totals under 25% of the portfolio. Despite such efforts, the number of nondiversified funds is increasing.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59731/many-lc-growth-funds-are-nondiversified#latest
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/307/diversified-nondiversified-funds

There are no hard and fast rules for minimum and maximum fund positions.
I agree with much of the info stated in the prior posts.
It's more important to focus on risk and diversification.
An investor can achieve good results owning only a target-date fund or a global allocation fund.
I think minimum fund exposure should be ≥ 5% since smaller positions will not be impactful.
Having too many funds often leads to "diworsification".
An individual investor shouldn't need to hold more than 12 - 15 funds in most circumstances.
Less is often more...

Ah, the age-old question @Bobpa. I agree whole-heartily with hank. Portfolio diversification is more important than number of funds, at least, imho. Holding 30, 40 or 50 funds can certainly be a diversified portfolio, but likely any 1 holding at 1, 2 or 3% is going to be meaningless to overall return. Being in 1 target date or retirement fund is likely as good or more diversified as that collection of funds. I happen to have more than 1/2 my money in the Schwab Intelligent Portfolio account (I remember you used to be in it also), and I see that account as nothing different than one of those target funds. So, I guess I have about 60% of my money in that "1 fund" :) .
I'll always suggest that everyone run their portfolio to their risk-comfort level. You can do it with 1 fund, 5 funds or 50 as some here do, but keep an eye on how you are diversified, and by all means make sure you measure against a benchmark. I've mentioned before I use TRP fund TBLQX because it matches fairly close for equity % to where I want to be at 68 yo. Playing with your own portfolio is fun and that is why we come to MFO, but is it fun at the expense of maybe falling 10s of thousands behind a benchmark you can just own otherwise?
If you are still at Schwab, I'm sure you know how easy it is to check your portfolio for diversification. FWIW, PRWCX is 25% of my self-managed portfolio.
As always, good luck.

”I presently have 77% in 5 funds in nearly equal amounts.”

Sounds reasonable. You posted some time back that you had 20% in PRWCX. (LINK). Not a bad choice. By all accounts it’s a great moderate risk fund. I sold it last week. But if I still owed it I’d be adding now with it down roughly 12-15% from recent highs.
No rule of course. When I was 25 I owned one. My workplace Templeton “advisor” had me in just one good global growth fund, Worked fine. (And I could have cared less at that age,) But over the following 50 years both my experience base and also the sheer amount of investment information available have multiplied. I don’t know how many mutual funds existed in 1972, but likely fewer than 10% of today’s choices. Bottom line - I’ve gone from 1 holding to over 20 (funds and stocks) in those 50 years.
One holding would still work. There are some good fund managers who can achieve nice diversification within a single fund. However, I don’t find tracking 20+ holdings that tedious using a good modern day tracker and with so much information now at my fingertips. Being at a NTF brokerage is somewhat of a new experience. If I’m going to “reach” a bit and dabble in some individual equities, far better I think to diversify and spread the risk around. After all, that was the overarching purpose of mutual funds in the early days - to spread market risk across a diversified cross section of stocks.
More directly to your question: While 1 fund could work, 5 might not work if they were the wrong choices or outside your risk parameters. Personal bias - I’d rather see people trying to hone in on the right allocation model for their risk appetite and needs rather than fretting about how many funds to own.

Thanks, msf. Good info and reassuring. I went to his account and collected documents for the year and 2021 year end. I also got the status for the day before his death, the day of his death and July 5 (the first market day after his death). The IRS link seems to make when the RMD for a 75-year-old man occurs irrelevant. The distribution is required and must use the deceased person's age. So, the amount distributed and taxed doesn't change before, on, or after death. Again, thanks. I guess I do need to relax a bit.

link below is from @JohnN post. 1970s inflation and Feds actions year by year are shown after ~16:35 minute mark - quite interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6yzbzJ5ety8&t=149s

Any opinions as to what you think are the minimum and maximum % to have any one position in a total portfolio? I presently have 77% in 5 funds in nearly equal amounts.

Hello
Sorry meant most [not 100%] and after modern Era (after ww2)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6yzbzJ5ety8&t=149s
(At 2.42)
https://www.mymoneyblog.com/sp-500-bear-bull-market-historical-list.html

My condolences as well. The first thing to do is to take a deep breath and not rush. Especially with Vanguard. For one thing, as others have said, they're just not available now. Another reason is that the instant you notify them of the death, Vanguard locks everything up, as Yogi wrote.
I speak from experience here. When a parent died, the instant I notified Vanguard I no longer had access to account information. That's really a total lockup.
Anticipating this, I downloaded everything I might need. (I had the account password.) That included monthly statements YTD, last year's end of year statement, 2021 tax forms, and a snapshot of current balances as of day of death. In your case, you should also get a record of the RMD schedule. Then notify Vanguard.
If your husband was born in 1950 (72nd birthday this year) then because of death before April 1, 2023 (required beginning date) no RMD is required. This is the only reason to rush to notify Vanguard - it could prevent an unnecessary withdrawal.
(The line Yogi quoted is more a description of how to calculate the RMD amount than a declaration that there are no RMD exceptions. For better clarity, see:
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b#en_US_2021_publink100090082 )
Otherwise, an RMD is required for 2022. If it was not made from the IRA prior to death, then it must be made from the beneficiary IRA and that income is supposed to be attributed to the beneficiary. Let Vanguard sort out how it will report the distribution.

100% of time after sp500 nasdaq drop >20% in two consecutive quarters, equities performed well 6-9-12 months after [massive runs]
We have to be little more patience

Trying copy-and-paste at a different time with Reply.
Barron’s Funds Quarterly (2022/Q2–July 11, 2022)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
Pg L2: It took a bear market for ACTIVE funds to shine. Over 50% of active funds outperformed their passive peers; the drag was from active growth funds and only 30% outperformed passive peers; active funds in 6 of 9 M* 9-styles outperformed their passive peers. Value/cyclicals outperformed growth. Active managers can better sort out among profitable and unprofitable companies and the latter did much worse with rising RATES (low rates encouraged speculation). Wide sector divergences also work for active managers. Passive mutual fund AUMs have exceeded those of the active mutual funds since 2019; some of the shift has been from active mutual funds to ETFs. But the record of active funds remains dismal over the long-term. An ACTIVE-PASSIVE strategy can also work – active for smaller, less liquid areas (SCs, HYs, EMs, etc), passive for larger, liquid areas (LC-growth, etc). CAUTIONS: Aggressive active funds may differ widely in performance; long-term performers aren’t short-term chart beaters, but those that consistently remain in 2nd-3rd quartiles. Active funds mentioned for long-term:
Growth: PRWAX, APGAX, ANOIX, GQEIX (cyclical growth)
Blend: BOSOX, FSCRX, IHGIX, PRSVX
Value: DAGVX, OIEIX, PEYAX
Pg L7: It was a tough quarter for ETFs. Even the energy ETFs tumbled in Q2. The EMs have been losing steam since 2021/Q1, but their China weight helped them some in Q2. Bond ETFs sold off as well. The ETFs that bet on rates, currencies and volatility did better.
EXTRA: While STOCK funds did poorly in Q2, it was a quarter to forget for BOND funds. There were heavy outflows from bond funds. Short-term and FR/BL funds held up better. COMMODITY funds did fine (but they had a late selloff).
EXTRA: High INFLATION will be around for a while. The following funds may offer inflation protection (some choices like core bond funds are unclear):
Real Assets: AAAAX, PZRMX; GSG
Stocks: ACSTX, FLCSX; IWM (cyclical exposure)
Bonds: DODIX (?), FTHRX (?), PRFRX, VIPSX; TIPX
I-Bonds (limited annual amounts)
Pg L33: In 2022/Q2 (SP500 -16.21%): Among general equity funds, the best was equity income -10.77% (yes, it was a BAD Q2) and the worst were all growth categories, multi-cap-growth -23.13%, MC-growth -21.70%, LC-growth -21.60%, SC-growth -19.10%; ALL general equity categories were negative by double-digit %. Among other equity funds, the best was China +3.68%, and the worst were precious metals -27.08%, science & tech -24.09%, Lat Am -22.17%. Among fixed-income funds, domestic long-term FI -5.26%, world income -8.41% (not very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s).

This week’s WEALTHTRACK guest is a well-known value manager known for her global and international investing. We’ll be joined by Sarah Ketterer, Chief Executive Officer of Causeway Capital Management. Ketterer will tell us why she believes we are entering a new investment era and discuss some of the “outstanding” investment opportunities being created in the process.

+1 Anna I experienced the TSP website mess for myself. I did a trustee to trustee transfer on 6/23 and had the funds sent to Fidelity. The transfer via paper check only took 5 calendar days, so that was a pleasant surprise. I find Fidelity easier to deal with and don't want the separate recordkeeping hassles of a TSP account!

Edit: Today’s action in junk bonds so far at least so far not as negative as it may appear. Although down, the junk ETFs are still trading well above Friday’s NAV meaning the open end may be up today.
I can confirm a very slight uptick on Friday, 08 July, '22: TUHYX = +0.25%. My only bond fund now. 10.69% of total.

It's Friday night, thoughts getting a little weird. Below the image is my Rube Goldberg-ish idea on what Vanguard might have done.

When the institutional investors place exchange orders from retail to institutional class shares, Vanguard redeems their retail shares in-kind (OEFs as well as ETFs can do this).
Institutional shareholders then sit with retail shares of a half dozen Vanguard funds (the underlying funds in the retail target date funds). Vanguard executes tax-free exchanges (not that it matters inside the retirement plans) of these retail shares into institutional shares of the same underlying funds.
These funds now constitute "creation units" that are used to purchase shares of the institutional target date funds
Thus, no sale of underlying funds in the retail funds; no recognized gain. In fact, reduction of unrealized gain - just like ETFs.
Vanguard might have been able to turn the mass migration into a positive rather than a costly negative.
Needless to say there are a lot of details I haven't checked; this is just some end-of-week rambling. But if Vanguard could have made something like this work, it really looks negligent for not doing it.

Howard Marks specializes in distressed debt ala junk bonds, bank loans, etc. Over the past several months I have continually read about how junk bonds offer value from various pundits. All the while it is one new low after another for junk bonds. So much so that the first half decline of 14% was the worst first half decline ever for the junk bond market.
What is particularly ominous is how detached junk bonds have been from equities and Treasuries. Meaning while equities had a vicious bounce a few weeks ago, junk and bank loans just kept making new lows. While Treasuries are having a nice recovery presently still new lows in the risk on credits aka junk and and bank loans. Below is a link to Morgan Stanley’s outlook for junk. Sounds much more objective and reasoned than much of what I have read recently
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-recession-arrives-will-we-see-surge-corporate-defaults
Edit: Obviously as with Treasuries recently, these markets can turn on a dime. And junk bonds are notorious for strong recoveries after bear declines. Coming off the 2008 bear market in
2009 junk had the greatest credit rally of all time rising over 50%.
Edit: Today’s action in junk bonds so far at least so far not as negative as it may appear. Although down, the junk ETFs are still trading well above Friday’s NAV meaning the open end may be up today.

Probably much ado about nothing but have a 7% position in VWEHX and hoping to increase as 7% barely moves the needle. Liked how on Tuesday intraday with the Dow down 600 points the cash junk market was up. First time in many a moon I had seen that type of intraday divergence. Junk had a decent week but 2022 has been a year of fake out rallies so buyer beware.

M* has been listening to some feedback. It has included an Export/Download feature to the new M* Investor.
6.1. Portfolio Export (Download) feature has been added. 7/8/22
Path: M* Investor/Portfolio/select a portfolio/Holdings/see More for Download (Export)
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/256/interactive-charts-newer-investor-portfolios?page=1&scrollTo=669

The Regular TDF did not have its own institutional class. It didn't even have Admiral shares. Below is an excerpt from the 2020 SAI for the funds.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/752177/000168386320000191/f2353d1.htm
That's why Vanguard would had to have created a Regular TDF institutional class.
Edit: As I think about it, creating such a share class would have been problematic. Vanguard charged no management fees or any direct fees at all for these funds. The total ER came from acquired fund expenses. That's likely why Vanguard created a clone fund with lower expenses. The institutional clone cost less because it purchased less expensive shares of the same underlying funds. I don't know how Vanguard could create a share class of the retail series with lower charges than what the underlying funds were charging.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST
Vanguard Chester Funds (the "Trust") currently offers the following funds and share 
classes (identified by ticker symbol):
Share Classes	 
Fund							Investor Admiral	Institutional
Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund					VPMCX	VPMAX
Vanguard Target Retirement 2015 Fund			VTXVX	—		—		 
Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 Fund			VTWNX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Fund			VTTVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 Fund			VTHRX	—		— 	 
Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund			VTTHX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund			VFORX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund			VTIVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund			VFIFX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2055 Fund			VFFVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Fund			VTTSX	—		—	
Vanguard Target Retirement 2065 Fund			VLXVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund			VTINX	—		—	
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2015 Fund	—	—		VITVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2020 Fund	—	—		VITWX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2025 Fund	—	—		VRIVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2030 Fund	—	—		VTTWX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2035 Fund	—	—		VITFX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2040 Fund	—	—		VIRSX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2045 Fund	—	—		VITLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2050 Fund	—	—		VTRLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2055 Fund	—	—		VIVLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2060 Fund	—	—		VILVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2065 Fund	—	—		VSXFX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement Income Fund	—	—		VITRX 

I suppose it's possible, but the investors would had to have been lucky in their timing. For example, suppose they looked at Vanguard's projected cap gains distributions and decided that they had to pay a Q4 estimate by Jan 15th. They might have sold at the top of the market.
OTOH, if investors waited until early April to sell shares to pay the extra taxes, they already lost quite a bit.
Either way, one has to ask where they're getting the cash from to buy back their shares. If they had the cash on hand, they might not have sold their shares to pay the extra taxes.
Another concern is that the large distributions put many investors into higher tax brackets, even for cap gains. They might have been in the 0% bracket but got pushed into the 15% bracket. And those in the 15% bracket might have been pushed into the 20% bracket. Not to mention the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income above a certain threshold.
Given that target date funds are designed to be an all-in-one portfolio, it would not be surprising to see even relatively small investors pushed into higher brackets.
In short, it's a nice hope that some of these investors came out better by being forced to sell shares at a market high. But given the difficulty in raising cash to rebuy later, given the higher brackets that their "windfall" pushed them into, it seems more likely that they got creamed.