IMHO you are getting wrong idea about WBALX being risk averse. If I may suggest some more funds, for you to research.
FWIW, I own each of them in either taxable or retirement accounts. Also I don't think I will be getting rid of these funds other than to swap them between accounts.
PROVX
AUXFX
LCORX / GLBLX (maybe you look at only one of them)
WASYX
HSTRX (it has already taken "gold" loss, downside could actually be lower now)
OAKBX
BRBPX
VWELX (even with its heavy bond position I feel more comfortable than WBALX, but I accept I'm looking to sell)
The following I do not own, but I think better than WBALX
DODBX
PRWCX (I have/might own again at some point in portfolio i manage for family member)

The biggest problems I have is this guy putting half his retirement assets in GOLD. He is 53 years old and invested in gold. Should be sophisticated enough. Has lived through two 50% declines. Knows better not to bet the farm on any asset that's gone up multifold over several years. WTF is he thinking? Why should anyone sympathise with him?
One reason I said we as investors collectively suck big time. It is true we have a lot of predators out there. Still I think we have to share a good part of the blame as well.

I use the two suggested portfolios from MaxFunds (http://www.maxfunds.com/funds/powerfunds/holdingsdata.php?port=2&pg=ph2) for allocation among categories. One is more conservative (I use it for kids college funds --needed in 5 or so years) and one is more aggressive (I use it for retirement funds -- needed in 15 years). Then I chose funds in each category based on recommendations here on MFO. Some years that is an advantage over the maxfund recommendations and some years, not so much.
The portfolios change infrequently, but the changes have been helpful in avoiding, for example, the major downdraft in 2008.

Reply to @SteveS: That's a pretty good story Steve. I'm 59 and planning to retire at least from full time work at 62, so I have been having the same thoughts and concerns about investing for the future as you. I enjoy the mutual fund game but I don't fool myself in thinking I'm making more then a financial fiduciary could do for me. No offense to Bee, but the simple spreadsheet comparison shown below isn't very useful in predicting ones outcome. Frankly, making 7% return in a conservative fashion during retirement is wishful thinking. At the very least, it shouldn't be counted on in your calculations. There are way to many variables, both economically, emotionally and unknown, that interfere with consistent returns.
Anyway, thanks for the post.

Reply to @SteveS:
Welome to MFO...Just so you and others fully understand what a 1-2% service charge means to your bottom line I included the growth of a single investment of $10,000 made when someone is 25. After 40 years...retirement age of 65... a 1-2% service charge would provide enough money for you and your financial planner to equally share in your retirement while you took all the risk and you provided all the hard work...with little or no risk on the financial planners behalf.
You sound smart enough to be able to generate a 7% return over 40 years without any help from an advisor, but if you would prefer less...6% or 5%...I'm sure there are plenty of financial planners who will "help" get you that too.
Over 40 years, that 1% difference equates to you "handing over" a chance to hold 50% more in profits ($70K vs $102K) (5% vs 6% return)...take a look at the difference between a 5% average return vs a 7% average return...tuly astounding profits for the fianacial planner when you consider you take all the risk.

Reply to @David_Snowball:
Thanks David, great comments and so true. Additionally, a smart well disciplined small investor is, as you previously mentioned in another thread, only mildly interesting to the Financial idustry so there is little help out there to orchestrate your discipline and skills. A small investor is up against a system designed to separate them from their principal and profits by offering limited investment options in retirement plans, by gleaning off 1-2% through on going expenses, and assessing trading and early redemption fees.
And most of us thought making money was hard...try making it grow!

The way I see it, there is NO magic number. As several people have pointed out, there are so many variables to consider (ages, company retirement accounts, size of accounts, knowledge, time to spend reviewing, etc) that pontificating on this is not a good use of time. We use a wide number of positions in our client accounts, mostly depending on the size of accounts. One client might have four accounts, one of which is very small, while another could be 10 times as big. And need for diversification also plays a role in number of holdings. Again, just too many variables. We have accounts where clients own individual stocks, so we need to consider how these fit into the mix, too. And some folks are married to one or more funds, whether we like them or not, so we have to work around them, sometimes isolate them as NOT a part of our allocation process. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on this.

Reply to @Art:
Hi Art,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I somehow must have missed it.
Form retirement, I have not yet got to slow down. My old firm keeps calling me back to the office from time-to-time to sort things out and meet with preferred clients. Seems nobody felt I did much but collect my time and money form being around the place. Then, when it was left up to others to do what Skeeter did ... Well, they are now seeing it was not so simple. After all, I grew with the position through the years, knew the people and knew how to handle issues to meet the customer's satisfaction. My boss is still there and she simple told them to do what Skeeter use to do ... after all ... it worked for him for many years. She was good at letting me go and do pretty much what I wanted to do and allowed me to take much of the summer off while she took much of the fall off. We could cover and work one anothers desk. Now she seems to have the mind set to let them learn on their own, much like she and I did. This is a small family run business and I handled much of the back office and she handled the front office and we could switch off while the others reported to us.
I have started billing them for my time when they call because the cusomers ask for me and if I have to come in to the office the rate is subject to what I find must be done. Somebody is going to screw something up real soon and real good ... and, I don't want to be around when they do. I don't think my boss does either and if she did not own the place she'd probally be out of there ... trying to kick back like I am doing. By the way I will get income trails for the next three years form the firm plus time that I might bill for my time. Told her she had to stay until my trails were paid.
So Art, That's how it is going. And, oh yes ... I play golf on Thursday afternoons and then drive to the coast for the weekend and then back to Charlotte on Sunday evenings. The wife still works in the local school system as a 52 week employee ... but, she works Monday thru Thursday through the summer months plus taking vacation. She will retire out of the system in about two years. We plan to gift the Charlotte homestead to our son when we move to the coast as it was gifted to us by my parents plus we have our own home too. In this way, we should be well pass the look back should we fall in poor health in the years to come and run out of money. I don't think so ... but, one really never knows.
I am still trying to find the time to start a restoration project on my 1992 Jeep Cheorkee that I have had for many years. I went and looked at a new one but just value my capital too much to let go of it. The Jeep needs a rear main seal, a set of new tires and just gone over in general but overall all I'd start out to the west coast in it on most any day. It is needed to put the boat in and out of the water at the coast and trail it back and forth during the off season rather than paying high slip and storage fees in the inlet. I have ramp acces through my HOA but not long term dock and storage.
I am not going there with Catch22 & Ted. There seems to be something of an issue ... hopefully, it will get worked out. They both are contributors and I would hate to see either leave. But, I do not enjoy the ongoing feud either.
I could go on ... but, I'd get in a rant. And, I just don't want to do that. Not now anyway.
Have a good one and thanks for asking.
How was the book?
Skeeter

Reply to @Skeeter:
Skeeter,
Good to hear from you. How's that retirement gig going?
I really did not expect Ted to answer my question. Lately Ted has been, for lack of a better word, stubborn, that his way is the only way.
I described a real life situation, mine. I watch over 52 funds in 7 account for family members. I also help co-workers with their allocations. I spend only a few hours a week looking over things and keeping a watch list to upgrade funds if needed.
I am still following the "Market Leadership Strategy" with a small amount as an experiment. So far so good.
As I like to say "If its not broke, don't fix it".
Art

Reply to @Ted:
You noted: "Granted not all 401(k) plans have very good fund options, but you should in the best they have to offer."
You answered your own question. I will state again, as you noted; "Granted not all 401(k) plans have very good fund options.
Many folks have to make this choice. Thus, some acquire more than one 401k, etc.; as the new employer retirement plan is lacking. If I had a brokerage available 401k at a previous employer, I surely would not throw that away and roll into a new plan that had limited choices and no brokerage feature.
You also noted: " but you should in the best they have to offer. You need to enroll in investing 101 ! "
Not sure what this means, aside from a presumption for some unknown reason.
Regards,
Catch

Howdy MikeM,
You are correct; and Ted is correct for his circumstance. My reply to Ted and golbu1 is that through one's working career and employee retirement accounts; circumstances with which we have no control cause different requirements for investing choices (funds). You and I both know the days of having the same employer for 30 or more years are likely gone. This was not the case for this house over 35 years; and we have encountered 5 vendor changes for our employer plans over those years.
Have you had vendor changes and/or more than one employer account?
Yes, the "other" accounts will be rolled by the end of this year. I am tired of dealing with so many vendor accounts. The "Funds Boat" write was about our retirement accounts; not being retired. That status is now changed for this year, 2013.
We don't hot swap fund holdings. I will guess that our average fund rotations may have averaged about 5/year over the past 10 years. We don't chase funds for whatever reason, without consideration and/or study.
Simple passive indexes available via Fido will allow for fewer funds. Hell, if one chose 6-9 indexes or etf's; we could cover pretty much the whole sector spectrum.
As an aside, I sure don't know why Ted has such a grind against me. I have asked in the past, but never had a reply. I am pleased everyone who is here at MFO and posts their thoughts, are indeed here. My reply to Ted was to help him and anyone else, understand circumstances that may evolve over a working career with employer retirement accounts. He has treated this as we being dumb arses at this house. We have only been working with what was available to us, and have a 7.24% annualized return beginning from 1979. Don't know what else we could have done to improve the numbers.
Well, anyway; take care and thank you for your thoughts here.
Catch

Reply to @catch22: You should have rolled over your 401(k) each time you left an employer. Working for a number companies in your lifetime, is very common, and most workers use the rollover method to simplify their retirement portfolios. Granted not all 401(k) plans have very good fund options, but you should in the best they have to offer. You need to enroll in investing 101 !

Howdy golub1,
You noted: " My question is since when we are talking stocks why is that so many individuals own 20 and 30 equity funds?"
I don't recall anyone here at MFO stating they owned 20-30 equity funds. Perhaps someone may have 20-30 funds of mixed allocations.
Read this to have a better understanding of what exists for some investors having multiple retirement accounts: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/26674#Comment_26674
I don't disagree with Ted and others who have noted here; that one does not necessary need many funds to cover a broad area of investment sectors.
If you find yourself forced or by choice, to work for 4 different companies during your working career; and you have a 401k, etc.; you will likely have the option to rollover the 401k from the previous employer or opt to keep the plan. Eventually, you may have 4 different retirement plans; and you will likely discover that many company plans are not all that good for choices. Thus, if you choose to have exposure to a particular fund sector in all of the plans, you too may have 4 different fund vendors for exposure to a sector.
Obviously, one may have a fairly broad spread across many sectors; if the proper funds or indexes are available. This circumstance would generally not be a problem with an IRA account; but can be a problem with company plans. At the least, one could choose a large, mid and small cap U.S. blend to cover this area. Perhaps a broad based internation and whatever other sector suits your fancy.
We have one plan that has a large cap and small cap index available, but no mid-cap. But, with the overlap of the large cap into the mid-cap area and the overlap of the small cap into the mid-cap area; most of the overall broad range of U.S. cap sizes are satisfied. One takes what they can get.
Hoping that you have access to one of the rare, well thought company retirement plans.
Regards,
Catch

Reply to @Ted: Hate to say it, :) , but I think Ted is on the money with his information.
Catch22, I'm sure you have thought about this, I think you said you were retired, but why wouldn't you make your retirement portfolio more concise by combining these different accounts to a single (or 2) IRA's.
I kind of think multiple fund portfolios happen because 1, reading about new funds and buying hot funds is addictive, and 2, it may be intuitive but not necessarily correct as Ted pointed out, to think more funds give better diversification and a smoother ride. A 3rd reason for the many fund portfolio may be the lack of trust in the managers they employ, not wanting to put a high percentage in one funds hands.
Anyway, not trying to offend the 20, 30, 40 or more fund investors. Just giving my 2-cents. Come to think of it, my 2-cents's have probably added up to about a buck by now.

"In the past I've read if you own stocks you need anywhere between 20 -30 stocks to be diversified. My question is since when we are talking stocks why is that so many individuals own 20 and 30 funds equity funds?"
Not here, at my house. I have a combination of taxable and retirement accounts, and my total is just 9. My wife just lately was informed that she now qualifies for her retirement plan at her job, and that account consists of just a single mutual fund from off of their less than ideal list of options. (Vanguard small-companies Index fund.) So, we have TEN funds, total.
Just make sure you have domestic and foreign covered. If you're younger, you won't need to invest much in bonds at all, mostly all equities will be better, until you get into your 40s or so. Choose your funds wisely. Listen and pay attention to the others in here, who know way more than myself. At least by now, I'm not a babe in the woods any longer. I've learned a lot in here, at Mutual Fund Observer.

As noted previous; and applied for our house having 8 different retirement accts; with 401k's, 403b's and our IRA's (trad. and Roth). One grabs what is available with some of these accts' and many plans are not all that great for fund choices. If a working couple wants exposure in large cap funds across the entire balance of all accts.; 8 different funds may be needed just for this.
Regards,
Catch

These funds may be harder to find (without a load), than people think.
I have verified that TTRZX (and TGBAX) are available at Firstrade, as Kevin stated.
But, while Schwab shows TGTRX as NTF, Schwab only offers these shares to institutional investors. When I try to find a world bond fund from F-T available to retail investors, Schwab just comes back with TPINX (with front end load), TEGBX (with a level load, and limited to redemptions), and Class C of Templeton Total Global Return (also with a level load). That last one is worth highlighting, because sometimes Schwab using its own internal tickers for funds. Here it is using TTR1Z instead of the standard TTRCX. Perhaps Schwab also has its own symbol for the TGTRX shares that it sells to retail customers?
Just as C shares are level loads, apparently so are the R (retirement) class shares FGBRX. These charge so much in 12b-1 fees, that like C shares, they must be called load funds. Those extra fees likely go to paying the retirement plan provider, so that the employer sponsoring the plan doesn't have to pay for the plan. (They're also offered in 529 plans and HSAs, where the fees would similarly go to the provider of the plan.)
So as near as I can see, the only way right now to get access (at the retail level) to noload open end versions of Hasenstab funds is to go through Firstrade. (They're in Flushing, Queens for anyone who wants to walk in.)

Reply to @Art: There are RMDs on inherited Roths.
In fact, the RMD amount is more severe - you may wind up using the single life expectancy table rather than the usual uniform life expectancy table. In addition, once you start the RMD, you have to subtract a full year (from your expected lifetime for the RMD calculation) each successive year (instead of looking up your new expected lifetime, which will have decreased by less than a year).
And it gets (slightly) worse. The earnings are still taxable if the (original) Roth wasn't around for at least five years. That's usually not a problem, because you take out contributions first, and in the first few years of withdrawals, that's all you'll be tapping.

To me investments are a way of funding future (retirement) opportunities or obligations. I tend to look closely at my personal retirement obligations...taxes, premiums, monthly bills, loan payments, etc. My goal is to have enough retirement income ( from part time work income, SSI / pension, and investments to cover my monthly bills). If I am lucky, smart, or inspired my investments may also help fund my favorite charities, family member's goals (weddings, schooling, reunions, etc.), or any other great idea (travel to the moon, salt and pepper shaker collecting, salsa dance lessons, etc.) I want to consider.
As far as the longeveity of today's funds, I believe funds managed by comittee often have a good chance of a long life. Index ETFs or Index funds do seem to get rid of this decision by comittee dynamic. These investments also usually carry a low ER (expense ratio) making the costs a good long term choice. The "flavor of the day fund" may not be tomorrow's favorite fund so I see these not being a good choice for a "perpetuity account".
Finally, I would consider this account being a Roth account. It would give you the flexibility while you are alive to access this account without tax penalty (review these IRS rules) as well as providing a tax free inheritance for your heirs.
As an aside, if my parents had invested in VWELX back in 1929 with a $10,000 investment it would now be worth almost $7M today...the power of compounding over time.

Three current / impending changes:
Bill Frels at Mairs & Power Growth (oddly, no word about Balanced)
Preston Athey at T. Rowe Price Small Cap Value
Jesper Madsen at Matthews Asia Dividend
Morningstar is reasonably sanguine about each. They maintained the rating on Growth, seem to be maintaining the rating at Balanced, and ding Price and Matthews by one notch.
For no apparent reason, Kinnel dredges up the rocky manager change 16 months ago at Columbia Value and Restructuring (UMBIX) where long-time manager David Williams announced his retirement for the end of 2012, they moved it up to April 2012 and the new management team completely restructured the fund into a clone of another they run.
For what it's worth,
David