Here’s what I think DavidV was referring to:
Insured Asset Allocation
“With an insured asset allocation strategy, you establish a base portfolio value under which the portfolio should not be allowed to drop. As long as the portfolio achieves a return above its base, you exercise active management – relying on analytical research, forecasts and judgment and experience to decide what securities to buy, hold and sell, with the aim of increasing the portfolio value as much as possible. If, however, the portfolio should ever drop to the base value, you invest in risk-free assets, such as Treasuries (especially T-bills) so that the base value becomes fixed. At such time, you would consult with your advisor on reallocating assets, perhaps even changing your investment strategy entirely.
“Insured asset allocation may be suitable for risk-averse investors who desire a certain level of active portfolio management but appreciate the security of establishing a guaranteed floor below which the portfolio is not allowed to decline. For example, an investor who wishes to establish a minimum standard of living during retirement might find an insured asset allocation strategy ideally suited to his or her management goals.”
Source: Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/investing/6-asset-allocation-strategies-work/

600+ stocks and it's not diversified? Huh? One needs more proportion of small and micro? It's too much a midcap?
Lowish turnover, Vanguard family (meaning closer oversight of the single manager, I would suggest), MFOP UI around 2 or a bit above depending on timeframe, what's not to like?
My personal problem would be the half in foreign, as I'm of the belief that foreign demonstrably does not add much value or indeed diversification, to the contrary.
I also would want somewhat more LC, as I have in my own retirement. But that's me.
If I were you and tending to follow the GMO thoughts, I would buy it and forget it.

Nothing wrong with a single fund if it has a diversified portfolio, like a Retirement fund. This one does not. Not even close. I don't think GMO ever suggested a portfolio of 1/2 international and 1/2 domestic and nothing else.
@STB65, have you used Portfolio Visualizer? If not, try it. Build a portfolio of 5-10-50 funds and another portfolio with one fund, a TRP retirement fund. Let that guide you.

I have suggested, to him, that he take all fund distributions in cash and stop the automatic reinvestment process since he is now in the distribution phase of investing.

I think that is good advice to your friend @Old_Skeet. I'm not at distribution phase yet. At 65 I keep putting off retirement, but my intent when I get there is to do what you suggested and change my fund and stock distributions to go to cash instead of reinvesting. My plan is to have about a 3 year cash bucket to draw from and add those distributions to the bucket. That should stretch out the replenishment time past 3 years and assure I don't have to replenish in a bear market.
Thanks for the feedback. You do seem to handle multiple accounts and the complexity that goes with that pretty well. That takes discipline. I have to say, the older I get the simpler I want to make things. I like investing, but I came to the conclusion a few years ago my tweaks and typically late adjustments added little to no value.

The enthusiasm of many people for individual bonds, especially regarding safety, continues to fascinate.
Ted "want[s] a reasonable risk free portfolio." Yet the individual bond portion of his portfolio contains one solitary bond. a junk bond (Moody's B3) at that.
There's no question that one can hold junk in a lower risk portfolio, if one adequately diversifies. What I've read suggests that to diversify a collection of taxable bonds one should start with at least $100K (see, e.g. this Money column or this Balance piece advising six-figure portfolios). That's so that you can hold more than a small smattering of bonds.
In contrast to Ted's single bond, johnN diversifies his bond portfolio:"I am 45 yo but have about 20 or 25 % of portfolios in private corp bonds." Still his apparent support for Ted's particular bond is puzzling: "Ted gave a great example hzt Corp grading is bad but the cusip has many etf and funds holding the Corp bond."
John's comfort zone is primarily investment grade. "I usually buy bbb- bonds or higher (sometimes bb+ too)". Ted's bond, rated b- (B3) is not only below investment grade, it is significantly below John's bb+ threshold for junk bond dabbling. This is supposed to be mitigated by setting email alerts on "hertz bankruptcy", thus enabling him to deal with "anything fishy".
But this hope is undercut by his observation that most of these HTZ bonds are owned by etfs and funds. Those funds are run by professionals who have faster access than email to information, better tools, and whose sole job it is to monitor securities. An individual investor is not going to outrace them should the bond value collapse.
Often when a bond defaults, bondholders get back a good chunk of their investment. But with HTZ, even a small amount of diligent research reveals something different. Should the company go into bankruptcy or be unable to meet its obligations, bond holders here may not recover a dime.
From the latest (FY 2018) 10K: "Substantially all of our consolidated assets secure certain of our outstanding indebtedness, which could materially adversely affect our debt and equity holders and our business."
If you're just starting out investing in individual bonds, here's a worthwhile column
entitled The Harsh Realities of Individual Bond Investing
http://rpgplanner.com/individual-bonds/
The author's recommended starting portfolio size is seven figures. That is probably much higher than necessary for diversification, but he's also addressing spread. I've done okay investing in individual munis, but I never sell because the spread. I'm not categorically against investing in individual bonds. You just need to really understand what you're getting into.

“The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts.”
- That’s a lot of accounts. Since you view them as a “consolidated master portfolio”, what you share with the board about allocations pertains to the overall big picture I would assume. Provided you’re comfortable with your health savings account having the same market risk as your retirement accounts, etc. that looks workable.
- I suspect there may be limitations within some of those different accounts as to which funds you may own. That would tend to increase your total number of funds.
- Since these accounts comprise a consolidated portfolio, it would seem impossible to maintain each of those separate accounts with the same proportion of assets at all times. The only way to do that would be to sell / buy equal percentages for each of the different accounts every time your allocation changes.
- Bank accounts should not increase the number of funds held. With my insured bank or credit union accounts I simply combine them all together under one category as “cash”. While they affect the allocation, they don’t contribute to the number of funds owned.
Thanks for the response and additional insights Ol’Skeet.
My own portfolio: 4 converted Roths, 1 Traditional IRA, and non-sheltered cash holdings. For simplicity I treat the various accounts as one “ball of wax”. I might try to position the Roths a bit differently - but generally don’t bother to keep them separate for allocation purposes. In a couple instances I hold the same fund in both a Traditional and Roth.

This is an exercise in file management. Less to do with investing. A single TRP retirement fund would likely result in simliar returns (but that's probably same argument for what I do.) You enjoy doing it so that is what's important.

My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. This skill set lead to my development of my sleeve management system to better manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
A credit manager's belief is that there are safety in numbers so spread the risk and limit how much any one account class can have on open credit. And, for those with a bad debt write off history ... it's CIA (cash in advance).

With retirement, I had planned to let this fund manage my money for the next 20 to 35 years. I'm concerned that a new single manager has been assigned. While I trust my judgment for a few years, I know it will decline.
What's up here? Vanguard rarely relies on a single manager. The fund had some mediocre years, but it was still a M* 4* fund on M*.
GMO says foreign and/or international funds have the best 7 yr prospects, but the January rally may have changed that assessment.
While I would like to follow GMO's recommendations, I don't have the resources to engage their services.
Suggestions appreciated.

Hi guys: As @hank noted ... Here is how Old_Skeet rolls and manages a consolidated portfolio of 49 funds. My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. Thus, I developed my sleeve management system to help manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to twelve funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.

FYI: We all know it’s important to save money for the future. But many people are afraid to invest. It looks complicated, and they don’t know who to trust. That’s why some people stockpile money in savings accounts and CDs. Others (the really quirky ones) stuff dollar bills into mattresses and empty jam jars. But this is like trying to fill a bathtub without the drain plug.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/the-best-way-for-newbies-to-invest-for-retirement

Good referance:
"The 1983 Amendments
In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century. (Summary of the provisions of the '83 Amendments)"
From Mr. Moran's March 1posting on COLA's - https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
That posting relates to COLA's. Government gives them under various programs then claws them back in taxes.

Thanks @rforno,
You are correct. I had assumed the disclosure issue related to the fund Prospectus and applied to all investors who might buy the fund. A second reading made it clearer. It’s some type of hidden administration fee targeted at the 401 K participants. However, were the issue instead related to the actual funds and their fees as stated in the fund prospectuses, than I think the SEC would still have jurisdiction.
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission administers and enforces the federal laws that govern the sale and trading of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other securities. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has oversight of 401(k), pension and retirement plans.”: https://www.sec.gov/complaint/401k.htm

IIRC Labor Dept has jurisdiction over policies governing employee retirement plans like 401Ks...think of the controversial 'fiduciary duty' rule & fees from the Obama DOL that Wall Street *hated*.
By contrast SEC has jurisdiction over what goes in these accounts (ie, investment vehicles like mutual funds, etc)

Thanks @rforno and Old_Joe for adding some needed clarity. Another puzzle for me is why the Labor Department is investigating? I’ll assume it’s because of the workplace environment in which 401-K products are marketed. Still, it seems to me this is something the SEC would normally take the lead in.
One guess: (merits of case notwithstanding) - this might be more of “an axe to grind” (politically motivated) case. Like I said - a guess. But this admin. is not above such tactics. I’m thinking specifically of previous threats to raise US postal rates for Amazon. Also, more recent threats to investigate a potential government criminal witness’ father.

Best Ira maybe SEP- Ira if you have a small business or have 1099 incomes... I have one at Vanguard - it's great way to have tax sheltered acct to have for long term holdings because you save so much tax deferred to use for investing
Anyone have DEFINED BENEFITS plans added to their portfolio!?

@johnN you asked this two weeks ago and I stated that "if the object is to maximize allowable contributions, the individual 401(k) is usually superior."
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/47567/roth-ira-and-sep-ira-and-defined-benefits-questions
I'll try to be clearer. What are you trying to do with a DB plan? Usually someone looks at these only with high income and after one has maxed out DC options. For most people with self-employment income, they get a higher max with a 401(k) plan than with a SEP-IRA.
The SEP-IRA limit is lower until you hit $280K in net income. Even then, it's still lower if you qualify for a catch up contribution, which you can't do with a SEP.
So if you're trying to increase the amount you can defer, have you looked into a 401(k) instead of a SEP? If you're trying to create a "traditional" pension plan (which is what a DB plan is), have you considered simply annuitizing (part of) your DC plan instead? That's simpler than doing all the annual mortality and funding calculations for a DB plan.
Here's a calculator from Fidelity that will show you what you can contribute to a SEP vs a 401k plan.
https://scs.fidelity.com/products/mobile/sepMobile.shtml
Here's Fidelity's worksheet (with 2017 limits) that shows you what's behind the calculations:
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/customer-service/401k-self-employed-owner-only-business.pdf
Another reason why a 401(k) plan is superior for some - unlike a SEP, it allows you to make Roth contributions. Vanguard finally added a Roth option to its individual 401(k). For many years, T. Rowe Price was the only one offering a no cost 401(k) with Roth option, which is why I used that. Fidelity's still doesn't have a Roth option.
https://investor.vanguard.com/small-business-retirement-plans/comparison

Wasn't the idea of the tax on SS in fact to tax the "rich"? If I recall the argument, many well-off people with large retirement incomes were (as usual) using loopholes to avoid taxes. Wasn't it the idea that people with lower retirement incomes would not hit the tax threshold for SS but people with the larger incomes would?

@Old_Joe, I don't remember the argument, but what you say about the actual tax computation is true. With lower income, much less of SS income is taxed; 2018 was a low income year for me, and ~ 15% is taxable, versus the usual ~ 85%.
Haven't heard this argument in a while, but I recall that in the past, at least, it was suggested that SS should be means tested ... and it is, via the income tax.
P.S., off topic: do you still have the place in the Russian R. valley? Another flood year there, I'm reading.

@davidmoran Inadequate to meet basic needs in retirement and for that reason it needs to be supplemented by personal funds.
But, given most people are way behind in their savings for retirement (or their current income is not actually sufficient to save substantially), SS will be their main income for them in retirement.
In reality many of them will not want to retire but will be forced to retire at some point either they will fall behind the recent technology a health event or an economical event such as another recession will force them out. Once out for a while, it is harder to come back.

"The fee is calculated as 0.15% of a mutual-fund company’s industrywide assets, not just on the dollar amount of assets held by Fidelity customers buying shares on the platform, the document says."
This is the kicker -- .15% of a hosted fund company's ENTIRE industrywide assets? So if they are offering XYZ's S&P 500 fund only, XYZ is paying Fido a fee that's based on not only the AUM of that fund but also the AUM of every other fund XYZ sells, even if it's not available on the Fido platform? And does that include retirement plans, SEP accounts, or other managed accounts? Wow .. that's chutzpah!
This sounds like an end-run around declaring a 12(b)-1 fee -- or a 12(b)-1 that's higher than the average for services that are supposed to be paid for from a stated 12(b)-1 fee. TL;DR Typical greed/sleaze move!!

In 2017, the COLA was a scant 0.3% — or a meager $4 a month for the average beneficiary.

So in 2017, the average monthy SS benefit is 1333 (working the number backwards $4 / 0.003)
For 2019 the average is $1461 according to this article (not sure if before or after COLA)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/102814/what-maximum-i-can-receive-my-social-security-retirement-benefit.asp
That decent 2.8% increase will deliver $40 or $41 (depending on 2019 figure is before or after COLA adjustment).
Social security is woefully inadequate and most people are not aware of it. They will be shocked one day when they go to collect their check.

Wasn't the idea of the tax on SS in fact to tax the "rich"? If I recall the argument, many well-off people with large retirement incomes were (as usual) using loopholes to avoid taxes. Wasn't it the idea that people with lower retirement incomes would not hit the tax threshold for SS but people with the larger incomes would?