Howdy Skeeter,
Heck, I sure don't have a problem with anyone for how and what they choose to fund their portfolio(s).
As I noted several days ago, I find no problem with having several multi-sector bond funds, cause they sure don't act the same and one has added more diversity into this portfolio group.
Now, if one has several active managed funds in a narrow sector; that may be another cosideration. This could be more true using only etf's or indexes.
Skeeter, not unlike your situation; we currently have numerous acct. positions within difference retirement accts using different vendors. These will get the big blend in the near future.
You got your groove on handling your mix with your methodology that is providing results. This is the important part, eh? You surely are way out in front of this house's returns so far.
Lastly, with the technology we have at our fingertips; it is not difficult to monitor numerous holdings; unless one is a trader using etf's and related.
Although we are still in the grips of winter here in MI; I can't believe that Daytona is not far away on the calendar. I didn't get much of a chance last year, to view many races; but will always do this one and 'Dega.
Take care down there,
Catch

Reply to @hank:

"Perhaps our house should just grab the best 10 balanced/flexible funds, and let the money ride ..."
Yep - not a bad long range approach for a conservative fellow. Problem is: even so-called balanced funds are designed for long-term investors (think 5-10 year time horizon.) For one intent on monitoring returns weekly or monthly they're as apt to disappoint as to please.

Unless you will need all of your retirement monies in 5 years, having a portion of your monies invested in balanced/allocation fund is reasonable.
People can and do live 20-30 years after reaching the retirement age. So, you have to have a portion of your assets invested in moderate growth, moderate risk funds. I think equity exposure of the portfolio should not be lower than 20%.

It's easier to have some degree of balance in a portfolio and really a perspective that's longer than the near-term. Otherwise, things can certainly become problematic and/or "funk"y at times.
If you're all bonds, you're bummed today. If you're all equity, you're bummed the next time the market tanks. If you're nearly all Asia (which Max was for a while), then I'd guess you're not thrilled when Asia underperforms for 3-6 mo.
You don't HAVE to have balance - especially if you strongly believe in something - but if you don't have balance, then you have to be wiling to accept days, weeks and possibly months of underperformance.
I really have no interest in fixed income and don't find it appealing at the moment, so I'm mostly equity - but that's my choice. Catch has done remarkably well with nearly all bonds, but I don't understand how fixed income can continue performing as it has. Maybe I'll be totally wrong, but I can accept that.
Here's the thing that would concern me if I was all bond or equity though; if you're not balanced and are all bonds (for example) and you can imagine that - at some point in the near future - you want to switch a significant amount of your portfolio to equities, that's really a major instance of having to time the market to optimally make that switch, and that - at least to me - is really unappealing. If you have some degree of balance, you can tweak things in a much easier and more relaxed fashion.
As for a need to be conservative, I absolutely respect that people want to be more conservative as they move towards/into retirement age, but I do think there are relatiely low-risk ways to get equity exposure - there's a lot of Johnson and Johnson type plays that are dull ways to get equity exposure and a nice yield that may rise over time.J & J is never going to be a home run (although it's done pretty well in the last year or so), but it also only lost about 10% in 2008.
J & J (and Procter/Gamble and the like) are going to have their problems occasionally, but there are certainly names out there that a person in retirement age could add and not have to feel overly concerned by the day-to-day and collect the 3-3.5% yield. From what I continue to see, consumer staples companies are certainly increasing prices.

I too have what many consider as too many funds.
Specifically 24 unique funds are spread over 5 accounts compromising 68 positions at the moment (excluding cash which is very small if any). Top 10 funds make 62% of the portfolio. If I include one more fund to cover all funds above 4% allocation, I have 66% of the portfolio in 11 funds. Largest fund has about 9% allocation. These accounts belong to me and to my wife. I consider the totality of these accounts as the retirement portfolio.
I tend to own the very same funds in different accounts so the total number of positions is much more as a result. I also like to maintain similar asset allocation in most accounts.
The smallest account has only one fund. My largest account is my Rollover IRA which has 21 mutual fund positions but has several one off funds that are not shared by the other accounts. A few are small positions that I maintain because the fund is closed and I might choose to increase to a significant allocation in the future if necessary. A couple funds are only available NTF in a particular broker so it is not possible to own the same fund in all in those situations and I have different funds. A couple are intended to be short term trading positions.
For actively managed funds I would like to spread the manager risk to several funds. This also contributes to the larger fund collection. If one is mostly using index/passive funds there is probably no reason to do this. If I were a purely index investor and covering the same asset classes, I could reduce the number of funds to may be around 10-12.
Anyway, what I am trying to say that I understand how one can end up with large number of funds. With online access to the accounts it is really not that difficult to manage these days.
Having said all that I intend to reduce the number to 20.

Owning only a multisector bond fund over the last year you would be no worse or better off than if they had invested solely in VTI...probably better off if in retirement because of the lower volatility of the bond fund.
Adding EDV (long duration treasuries) to this chart shows (in my mind) how important other types of bonds are to a portfolio mix that include equities. I'm seeing valuing in buying EDV with profits from VTI or any other equity fund that is out performing right now.

Different strokes for different folks. If the idea of spreading risk over many funds is comforting to an investor, then owning many funds has it's purpose. It's not my style. I have essentially about 13 "core" funds and I like to tweak my equity balance (with-in a range) using index and the TRP retirement target date funds. The core funds keep about a 50:50 mix of equity/fixed by themselves. Part of the reason I use index and target funds to adjust equities is because of the way my 401k is set up. I can move within index funds and target date funds without timing restrictions.
What is more important and what will contribute most to Skeeter's overall returns will be his portfolio balance using his valuation criteria. Not the number of funds he holds. At least in my sometimes less than humble opinion :) And for me, even using many less funds, I can still use the basic Skeeter 'range-valuation' method.
Thanks again Skeeter.

Reply to @Anna:
I think there are two different question here. One is borrowing vs. withdrawing, and the other is withdrawing vs. suspending. I'll assume for the sake of argument that a withdrawal is covered by one of the penalty exceptions (e.g. first home), so that all that one would owe is ordinary taxes on the withdrawal.
To take your question first - suspend vs. withdraw. Yes, in that case, the two situations are the same. If one contributes, say, $400 to a 401K and then withdraws it, then one sees $400 reduction in income (due to the contribution), but also $400 in extra income (due to the withdrawal). These cancel out, and it's as if you didn't contribute at all, i.e. the same effect as suspending. Notice that we didn't even have to assume anything about tax brackets here.
But borrowing comes out better than withdrawing (or suspending, which we've just seen, is equivalent to withdrawing). That's because you have the ability to put borrowed money back into a sheltered account. You lose that ability if you withdraw money.
If you withdraw money, then you pay taxes on it, say 25%. So if you withdraw $400, you pay $100 in taxes and have $300 to use. When you pay yourself back, you've got $300 in a taxable account. Say that the money doubles by the time you retire. You've got $600, but a tax liability on the gain of $300. You'll owe at least $45 in taxes (15% cap gains rate).
On the other hand, suppose you borrowed $300 (leaving $100 in the 401k). When you pay back the loan, you'll have the original $400 in the 401K. Again, say that the money doubles by the time you retire. The 401K now has $800 in it. You withdraw the money and pay 25% in taxes ($200). You're left with $600. Notice that here we did need to assume same tax bracket in retirement.
[ It turns out that this is the same logic that is used to show that contributing to a Roth is better than contributing pre-tax assuming one maxes out. If one doesn't max out and if tax rates don't change, then pre- and post-tax contributions come out the same. ]
But there are other factors to consider. As the article points out, if you borrow against a 401K and then leave a job, you have to repay the loan quickly, else it is treated as a withdrawal (which could push you into a higher tax bracket, voiding all the calculations above).
Also, I wrote about borrowing against a 401K and not an IRA because one cannot borrow from an IRA. (One can "touch" IRA money for 60 days before returning it as a rollover - even to the same IRA - but I figure that's not the type of "loan" we're talking about here.)

It's all kind of silly, isn't it? Less and less employers are offering a match so there is really no point to the IRA rules as long as the taxes are paid. After all if there is no match the best way to borrow from your retirement savings is just to suspend contributions. If the tax bracket doesn't change, the effect is the same as withdrawing the same amount, isn't it?

We sold our position in HAFLX on the day after learning that it would be liquidated. I have been tracking MFCFX (ER 1.43%) since the new managers took over on 7/20/12. If I were to re-enter this fund, I would buy the lower cost CCMZX (ER 1.25%), which is available at Scottrade for a $100 minimum in taxable and retirement accounts with no TF.
We own PVSYX which may also invest across a company's capital structure like MFCFX, although it targets leveraged companies. PVSYX is multicap with a much lower average market cap than the LCG MFCFX. So PVSYX is not a direct substitute for MFCFX.
Kevin

I want to add my Thank You to David and everyone else involved with the conference call. Teresa Kong's comments added to the list of reasons that resulted in my investment in MAINX a few months ago. Basically, the foreign bond segment of my taxable "retirement" portfolio (I am "retired" and withdraw a measured amount from that account each quarter) appeared to be under weighting Asia. MAINX appeared to provide a balanced way to increase my bond exposure to that dynamic region of the world. After the call, it continues to appear that way. The mix in that account will keep its equal parts of FNMIX, MAINX, DIBRX, and TTRCX for now.
Thanks again.
davfor

I wonder what "mark" they're missing?
The article focuses on 2015 Date funds. It makes one interesting observation: since 2009, their target asset-allocation has decreased from 49% to 40%. As market-timing generally goes, that was a poorly timed though the article offers no particular evidence that a 40% allocation is inappropriate for someone within a couple years of retirement.
Their other argument, about returns, strikes me as silly. In 2012, funds with this target date made 10.6%, only 66% of the S&P 500's return. Uhhh ... they had only 40% exposure to the stock market but generated 66% of its gains? On face, that seems like exceeding the mark by a lot.
The difference isn't made up for by their bond allocation alone since the bond aggregate rose just 4% last year. On average, 40% stocks/60% bonds should have led to a portfolio return of 8.8% but these guys managed 10.6%.
David

Unfortunately a lot of investors are doing even worse than the target funds on their own. They are not perfect but often better choice in a lot of retirement plans.

Reply to @catch22: I'm not in retirement age, and I don't particularly like playing specific things like what's going on in Japan, but I think that 1:) what's going on in Japan is going to play out over a longer period (more than something that just plays out over a quarter or 6 mo) and 2:) there will probably be opportunities to get in lower.
If I was at/near retirement, I'd just be in P & G, J & J and the like around the world - boring, provides a nice yield and largely don't require looking after.
Vanguard's Consumer Staples etf (VDC) offers a 2.95% yield and lost only 16.95% in 2008.

One of the perks of being with Schwab, I guess. They do some things very well, like their Personal Choice Retirement Accounts. Other stuff not so well, which I have groused about previously.
But in this case...AOK. Here are the screen-shots showing DPIAX and PGBAX as No Load No Fee:




Hey...I did not know that AOK was a fund symbol until now! AOK is iShares S&P Conservative Allocation ETF. Gotta add that one to my notable list =).

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=1E8D2FAC-61BF-11E2-AD22-002128040CF6
Center For Retirement Research Boston College: http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/IB_13-1.pdf
The Actual Study: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=567122

How about a foreign small cap? MSMLX. Just to introduce a little wrinkle.
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?pgid=hetopquote&t=msmlx
It is at the very least competitive with the other Matthews funds in terms of performance. I do not own it, though. I'm holding enough individual funds to make me happy and keep me busy, monitoring it all. And since retirement, I've got more time to do that. Wifey's working. Do I feel guilty? Hell, no.

Hi Charles,
Once again, thank you for your current posting. It is an daunting piece of work that documents your commitment to manage your portfolio in a risk control manner. I’m sure your end portfolio wealth will reward you for your diligence and work ethic.
Also, thank you for introducing me to Martin’s Ulcer Index. Until your posting, I was not familiar with that alternate risk measurement. Risk is a complex concept that likely means different things to different folks. I’ll definitely add the Ulcer formulation to my array of risk assessment measures.
Your findings reinforce the adage that portfolio diversification works wonders in the risk control arena. Reducing portfolio volatility increases geometric returns which is paramount to portfolio end wealth. It also decreases the sheer number of negative annual returns and any maximum annual loss. Both of these factors reduce anxiety and encourage a “stay the course” discipline. All this is in the goodness direction.
As in any serious study (and your study is indeed serious), the conclusions are tightly coupled to the assumptions, constraints, and selection criteria imposed on the overall study.
You greatly expanded the solution map by examining thousands of mutual fund candidates over numerous timeframes extending backward to over 40 years. Great. You greatly restricted the solution map by postulating a maximum annual portfolio loss (ultimately your 10 %, 7 %, 4 % component criteria) and by specifying a conservative 4-component portfolio that featured a rather large cash component and a 30 % to 40 % equity position.
These criteria are needed to identify candidate funds, but are not universal. Modify any of these elements and the solution map is immediately changed. These assumptions and constraints govern the remaining portfolio choices (not surprisingly since they were designed with that goal). But because of these reservations, your findings can not be quickly extrapolated to other portfolio constructions or downside risk tolerance without hazard. I’m sure you recognize these limitations; others may not.
In your final observation you questioned if your specific current findings can be used as a forecasting tool. Your results to date provide a partial answer – No. That provisional negative answer is informed by the various timeframes that you explored.
Each timeframe that you examined yielded a different array of “winning” mutual funds. Performance persistence was never established. A performance regression-to-the-mean seemed to be the operative paradigm. Several academic and industry studies have demonstrated that even superior performing mutual funds have a few very bad years imbedded in their overall outstanding record. Projecting future performance is a tough nut.
In no way do these comments diminish the advantages of portfolio diversification. It’s useful stuff. In a sense your findings support the John Bogle admonishment to fully diversify, but to do so with passive Index options to not only control risk, but control costs too.
Charles, you are doing yeomen work. In no way are my comments meant to denigrate or demean your fine efforts. Your work can only enhance your market understanding, your insights, and your portfolio construction.
In the end, you will enjoy a more stress free retirement. Good for you. Your postings will inform all MFO participants. Good for us.
Best Wishes.

Reply to @Charles: They stopped their tie-up with Target to sell mobile phones in their stores because it wasn't working out - I'm curious how that is massively positive. Another pair of companies will just take the place of RSH selling phones at TGT. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/14/us-radioshack-target-idUSBRE90D18E20130114?type=companyNews)
A third of the float is short. It may be a decent speculative holding, or at least a decent short squeeze play, although that may have already happened to some degree. It may just wind up being like Rite Aid and just muddling along (although I remain sorta interested in Rite Aid, as the demand is probably going to be there with the amount of people reaching retirement age.)

TIAA-CREF is a massive organization, and one needs to be careful and precise when discussing their products and services. Without detail, it is difficult if not impossible to offer specific comments. For example, Hank talked about the TIAA-CREF retail mutual fund offerings, which I suspect is not what the OP (STB65) is being offered. (I make that inference from various factoids: 403b plan, class R6 for American Funds [Europacific], Vanguard Signal class, etc.)
So let me offer a few sweeping statements and guesses. Generally, 403b plans are annuities (even though the law was changed several years ago to allow other types of 403b plans). TIAA-CREF retirement plans are almost exclusively annuities in any case. I don't know what the Fidelity options are. All that said, the wrapper (additional) cost for TIAA-CREF plans are miniscule (my guess is around 10 basis pts). In addition, the fact that R6 share class is being offered says that this is a very large plan, and you are getting extremely low cost share classes of funds.
I know that because American Funds (which runs the fine EuroPacific fund) offers retirement fund share classes R-1 through R-6. The higher the number, the lower the expense, and the bigger the institution has to be to qualify. Similarly, Vanguard Signal class shares are the some of the cheapest you can get - cheaper than Investor, than Admiral shares. (But Vanguard sometimes has a separate clone fund for institutions that's cheaper still.)
So we know at least a couple of things - we're talking about a very inexpensive plan, likely cheaper than anything Fidelity has to offer, and we're talking about a wide variety of funds offered, whether through TIAA-CREF or Fidelity, though in either case it's not the whole universe (these are employer-sponsored plans). And this is why offering specific comments is difficult without more details.
(FWIW, I have posted in the past comparing Fidelity's and TIAA-CREF's retail annuities, and there's no question TIAA-CREF wins hands down for many reasons - cost, performance, variety of offerings, etc. But just as I feel Hank's comments may not be applicable to the OP's question, my own observation about these retail products is likewise not particularly germane.)
Since this 403b is with a former employer, it seems that the OP would be able to roll it over into an IRA and do anything with it, including setting up the IRA with TRP. But then the OP would lose the access to some excellent institutional share class funds. I can't talk about all of them (don't know the options), but can offer a few comments about the funds mentioned (and two unmentioned).
TIAA-CREF offers TIAA Real Estate - this is a unique portfolio. TIAA invests directly in real estate - no REIT wrappers, no REOCs; pure real estate, just as an equity mutual fund generally invests directly in stocks. But true mutual funds are prohibited from investing directly in real estate; you can only do this through special plans like the TIAA-CREF 403b. (Investor has pointed this out as well.) TIAA-CREF also offers a fine stable value (traditional annuity) option, though it doesn't sound like the OP is particularly concerned with what to do with cash.
As to the funds mentioned:
EuroPacific Growth is the largest international fund in terms of assets ($100B+), yet continues to have excellent performance. To get it without a load, with an ER of 50 basis points, is great.
Templeton Global Bond - Hasentab is a unique manager - plays currency separately from bonds (so that he may be 20% long in a country's bonds while being 10% short in that country's currency); buys the best bonds the world over based on the bonds themselves, not the countries. No one else like him. Has the freedom to go anywhere, which is why, even though this is a "world" bond fund, it is almost all in EM bonds now (Korea 15%, Hungary 13%, Poland 9%, Mexico, Indonesia, Ukrane each 7%, etc.)
PIMCO Total Return III - similar to PIMCO Total Return - the country's largest mutual fund; both managed by Bill Gross. Unlike TR, TR II has "only" $4B in assets, giving Gross a little more flexibility. I'm not a fan of his, but obviously many people are - enough to give him almost $1T dollars to manage. Can't argue with the performance numbers Gross continues to put up, despite the occasional slip like 2011.
Vanguard 500 Index - what is there to say? If one likes S&P index funds, this one costs 5 basis points and one can't beat Vanguard for quality of index fund management or dedication to long term investors (as is typical for retirement plan investors).
Vanguard Total Int'l Index - Vanguard gradually changed its benchmark. They finally built a fund that includes Canada, EM, smaller companies as well as the usual EAFE components. While one can argue that one wants, say, more EM, if one buys into the index argument that the idea is to buy the whole market, then this may be the best representation of what the world has to offer. Again, Signal class gives you very low ER (16 basis points), fine Vanguard management.
Don't know as much about the other funds named - they're smaller, typically load only, so off my radar. Would like to know what other choices you have.

Reply to @andrei:
ABNIX continues to be available in Firstrade retirement accounts for a $500 minimum. I bought the fund there and then moved it to Wellstrade where I made additional purchases.
Kevin