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.

"Around this time last year ... the Republican agenda was intact."
@Ted - you put this in play
The article continues ... "All that changed in the last three months of the year.   ...[Elaine Stokes] says 'We went from a Republican-led agenda to a mixed Congress with stalemate situations '"
What was that agenda that became stalemated only after September? Serious question. I get nervous when managers let their politics drive their investing.
According to National Review (Jan 2018),

At the White House, infrastructure is the big idea. ...
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan keeps talking up welfare reform: ... He also says that reform of Medicare and Social Security is on his wish list, although he does not see it happening this year.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, says action on welfare is unlikely but suggests that bipartisan legislation on immigration and financial regulation might be possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/worthwhile-republican-agenda-2018/
That was January. In April, CNBC's headline was: Trump keeps calling for major legislation, but Congress isn't listening – especially with midterms coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/trump-congress-dont-expect-big-legislation-in-2018.html
It's one thing to have hopes (of whatever political persuasion), it's another for a fund manager to look at a 2018 Congress that was dysfunctional and believe that only now has it become stalemated.
Especially since much of the major 2018 legislation was bipartisan, e.g. sanctioning of Russia, criminal justice reform, opioid crisis response act. Not to mention the farm bill that passed with wide support once a provision to restrict food stamps was pulled out.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

I have 5 regular funds and 6 ETFs, and a very conservative AA at 35/65.
I am spread across the global equity market and the domestic bond market (no long term and no junk) with maybe 10% in foreign bonds. I could dump 3-4-5 of the funds and still be as diversified, and still maintain my AA.
But everything is working so I'll just leave it alone.

FYI: A reader recently raised an important question: Does an investor really need to own a lot of funds, or, can one still expect to obtain good results with a much more limited number of funds, or perhaps, even with as few as one? More specifically, it seems, he was indirectly questioning the need in my last Model Portfolios (Oct. '18) for so many funds (15 stock funds and 11 bond funds to be exact). Even my new "Recommended" stock and bond fund listings (see below), which now replace my Model Portfolios, now show 20 funds altogether.
Great question! Let's be honest - it would be highly difficult, and most likely unneccesary, for most investors to acquire each and every one of my recommended funds. (Even I don't own all 26 of the Oct. '18 funds, although I do own all of the 20 funds listed below. By way of explanation, I have been at this for more than 2 decades and once I find a fund I am satisfied with, I rarely close it out, thus leading to perhaps too many funds - yes, I admit it.)
Regards,
Ted
http://funds-newsletter.com/mar19-newsletter/mar19_new.htm

@ted https://bucknerbusinessdaily.com/hertz-global-holdings-inc-htz-mf-rank-tolls-higher-to-3602/366134/

FYI: I'm very happy being out of the market, although I must admit its hard not to be trading !
Regards,
Ted
74.82%: 4 CD (3-6-9-12 Months)
18.41%: Funds (PONCX 12.37% - MVRXX 6.04%
6.74%: 50 Hertz 7.375% 1/15/21 Bonds
03%: Cash ( Morgan Stanley Bank Account)

“Fidelity Women’s Leadership Fund will seek long-term growth of capital. The plan is to “invest primarily in equity securities of companies that prioritize and advance women’s leadership and development.” One woman on the senior management team qualifies a stock for inclusion, as does having one-third of the board be women or, more generally, having policies designed to attract, retain and promote women. ... The fund will be managed by Nicole Connolly.” (from David’s commentary.)
Are we at the point in society where it matters which gender your CEO or fund manager is? There are of course many other dubious “leadership” categories based on individual traits like race, nationality, political affiliation, age, religion or athleticism that might become the basis for a new fund. Some investors, for instance, might like a “Big 10” fund (invests only in companies headed by guys who’ve sustained brain injury on the gridiron).

I have a question as to how/where David got his numbers for the cash holdings for funds in 15/15 funds update piece? In my research, the Artisan Thematic fund doesn't have 30% in cash but instead less than 10% and the FMI International doesn't have 59% in cash.

Translation: "If you're annoyed by these fees, just buy OUR funds!"
What a lame non-response response by Fido.

From Fidelity Monitor & Insight:
"As we went to press, The Wall St. Journal is reporting that an“obscure fee” charged by Fidelity to third-party fund companies for the right to distribute their offerings on Fidelity’s Funds Network platform, has caught the attention of federal regulators. Of central concern is whether a purported fee of 0.15% is being absorbed by the
fund companies themselves, or if it’s being passed to fund shareholders in the form of higher, undisclosed fees. Note: This matter does not affect Fidelity funds. "

From Fidelity Monitor & Insight:
"As we went to press, The Wall St. Journal is reporting that an“obscure fee” charged by Fidelity to third-party fund companies for the right to distribute their offerings on Fidelity’s Funds Network platform, has caught the attention of federal regulators. Of central concern is whether a purported fee of 0.15% is being absorbed by the
fund companies themselves, or if it’s being passed to fund shareholders in the form of higher, undisclosed fees. Note: This matter does not affect Fidelity funds. "

FYI: When Ed Perks graduated from Yale University in 1992, he packed up his Mitsubishi hatchback and drove from his childhood home in Levittown, N.Y., to San Francisco. The fact that he didn’t have a job waiting for him in California did little to temper his enthusiasm. “The San Francisco area really stood out to me as an opportunity in the early ’90s because of the community that existed here in the finance industry,” says Perks, who is 48. “You had smaller investment banks and hedge funds, but also established asset managers
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/income-hunting-ignore-the-market-and-focus-on-companies-says-this-fund-manager-51551445200?refsec=bonds
M* Snapshot FKIQX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fkiqx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot FKIQX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/fkiqx
FKINX Is Rank #6 In The (30%-50%-E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-30-to-50-equity/franklin-income-fund/fkinx

FYI: Around this time last year, Elaine Stokes, co-manager of the $11 billion Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, thought the stage was pretty well set for an economic upturn. Most major economic indicators were pointing upward, the Republican agenda was intact, and a recession was the last thing on most people’s minds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/bright-lining-43471.html?print
M* Snapshot LSBRX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LSBRX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot LSBRX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/lsbrx
LSBDX Is Ranked #15 In The (MB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/multisector-bond/loomis-sayles-bond-fund/lsbdx

FYI: A cryptocurrency exchange founder dies, leaving 100,000 customers without
access to their digital coins. But is their bad luck someone else’s fortune?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1dbyj0cbkbyr0/Death-in-the-Time-of-Bitcoin

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.

@TheShadow - You are on the ball!
I sold $25k of STATX on Thursday, 2/28/2019, and the funds are in my Vanguard settlement account today. It looks to be an orderly closing so far ...

FYI: Spring Break at Augustana College!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/03/march-1-2019/

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

Related. Think Ted post this article last yr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T052-S001-10-funds-beat-the-market-another-decade.html
Most mf have 1 2% annual fees will put large dink in long term returns - long term superior returns may not be possible

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.

@Lewis: I don't think that Bill will ever ask you to play poker with him, or view his stamp collection. Where have you been ? I heard on the grapevine that Dow Jones ask you to stop giving your opinions on MFO. I guess the grapevine was wrong 1
Regards,
Ted