Bought back the shares of NSRGY I sold 10-12 days ago. Essentially same price. The price action has been a lot better over ensuing time. To make room I cut my corporate bond CEF (WEA) in half so that each holding equals just 5% of portfolio.
LOL - Groundhog Day

Concentration by itself doesn't work. I have been using concentration + momentum + best risk/reward funds + being in the right wide-range categories.
Since I started in 1995, there have been three long term cycles
1995-2000 + 2010-2020 = US Large cap tilting growth
2000-2010 = US Value, some small cap and some international
BTW, I changed the number of funds from 5 (2000-2018) to only 2-3 since retirement in 2018 because I can only find very limited great ideas.
You can read how I did it (here).

I based my system loosely on 3 Buffet’s rules but adapted it to funds: Rule No. 1: Never Lose Money. Rule No. 2: Never Forget Rule No. 1 and Rule 3: Diversification is a protection against ignorance. I added a fourth rule: momentum. I also liked Bogles' ideas of owning just 2-3 funds but changed it to 5 funds.
I used the above until 2018 and changed. I realized I only have 2-3 great ideas (funds) at any moment.
It doesn't matter if you have 2 or 10 accounts, 100 funds to select from, or 10K+. You are in control of how many funds you own.

i've got a bit of hodgepodge as I only have so many options in various accounts.
HSA - its at one place and use ETF's (I use an IShares allocation etf)
Roths - these are 7 funds in total (my FIL opened my wifes first IRA a long time ago and there are 2 funds (VWUSX and OAKIX) that i've just left in there. the rest are vanguard index, avantis (were DFA at where I had access to them)
401k - 3 funds (2 are a mutual fund version of 2 of the IRA funds)
I have a traditional IRA as well that largely consists of 2 PIMCO stocksplus funds.

I think that most investors would generate similar to better results over time by using up to 5-7 funds, mostly indexes, hardly trade, and rebalance...all based on their goals, style and risk tolerance.
I never believed in any of the above, which is why I became a trader in 2000, when the stock market started to go down. It worked really well for me, using wide range categories
Another observation: markets have long cycles where 1-3 categories are above the rest, so why rebalance?
I started investing in 1995 based on the following:.
1995-2000: US LC tilting growth.
2000-2010: US Value+SC, and international. SPY+QQQ lost money for 10 years.
2010-2024: US LC tilting growth. Since 2018, I'm mostly in bond OEFs.

Thanks @Charles. ISTM that at one time (maybe late 90s) Jack Bogle recommended that investors wanting just 1 fund use VTSAX (total stock market index fund) rather than an S&P 500 fund.
Not to praise or promote James Stack’s InvesTech Research. Folks can do their own research as to its worth. But as a current subscriber I decided to do a count of his fund recommendations. I found that his currently posted ”Model Portfolio” includes a cash position plus 9 funds. Unlike my 10/10 portfolio, Stack’s picks are not equally weighted. An interesting coincidence nonetheless.

@Baseball_Fan In response to your July 21 question about VELIX being a 130/30, the co-manager, Lisa Wesolek, with whom I have been pretty tight since my profile ran, writes as follows. "Yes, we did initially intend it to be a 130/30. We knew they had fallen out of favor but thought it would be a good idea/timing to Introduce a new strategy with the experience we had as you noted above.
We had some strategic conversations with a couple of outside analysts that knew us and the reputation for Ric's experience with Diamond Hill's long- short (Dennis here: Rick Dillon ran a long-short fund at Diamond Hill asset management when he worked there.) as you also aptly noted. (After we launched, they became aware Ric was back in business and contacted us).
With respected input and much discussion, Ric and Kyle made the decision to change the focus and name to allow the team to not be "constrained" by the "having" to maintain a short position if the market conditions and therefore the managers felt the value was not there on finding good shorts. Also making the decision of adding the use options, puts, and calls.
I don't think there is anything to read into the decisions via the DHIL L/S necessarily. In some of our discussions regarding previously managing long short it was noted one of the challenges received most from investors, concerned the shorts. The performance would most often be in the long book, finding short ideas was often challenging. (Disclaimer, no idea what or how DHIL manages L/S post 6/30/2018).
Ric and Kyle (Dennis here. Ric and Kyle are the co-managers of VELIX) felt going Large Cap Plus eliminating the constraint of having to maintain a percentage of shorts but using shorting more strategically and adding the additional mechanisms for helping to hedge would be more compelling.
I hope that helps. Happy to chat more or set you up with a call with Ric or Kyle."
Lisa

"Morningstar's John Rekenthaler starts with a simple but unusual observation that if 2 assets have the same long-term (LT) TR, then rebalancing will definitely benefit the TR."
In all other cases, rebalancing hurts TR, but does control risk

That's the inverse of the JR wrote, and inverses are often not true. (See The Fallacy of the Inverse, and Example 41 here.)
JR: If two assets have same LT TR, rebalancing helps portfolio TR.
Inverse: If two assets do not have same LT TR, rebalancing does not help (hurts) portfolio TR.
JR's statement can be understood intuitively. If asset 1 has a good year (relative to asset 2) and the assets have the same long term returns, then in the other years (on average) asset 1 must do worse. Since it will do worse, one would be better off moving some money from asset 1 to asset 2, i.e. rebalancing.
But even if asset 2 has poorer long term returns than asset 1, it could have better returns in the right years so that rebalancing still improves performance.
Suppose we have stocks (asset 1) and bonds (asset 2), and they return 10% and 8% respectively in odd years, and 8% and 9% respectively in even years. On average (long term), stocks return just under 9.0% (10% and 8% compounded), while bonds return just under 8.5% (8% and 9%).
In odd years, stocks do better (10% vs 8%) and rebalancing moves money from stocks to bonds. The next (even) year, bonds do better (9% vs. 8%). So moving money from stocks to bonds (rebalancing) turns out to be the right move. Likewise, in even years, bonds do better; rebalancing moves money from bonds to stocks which then do better the next year. Again, the right move.
The world isn't that neat, and often rebalancing won't improve portfolio performance. But arithmetically, one can't say that rebalancing must hurt total return.

I have the answer @hank. I just checked my Roth, 401k and T IRA accounts, which I try to manage as one portfolio, and the answer to your question is 15. 16 if you add cash that I group as treasuries, CDs and MM. No more, no less should be used! / I'm being facetious. That just happens to be where I'm at. As you know it is totally up to the individual’s comfort level …

@MikeM is right where I was up until about 12-15 months ago. Try as I might, I couldn’t seem to bring the total number of holdings (TOD, Roth & Traditional IRAs) below the 15-17 number. Each held a unique “spot” inside a diversified portfolio. So when a “spark inside my brain” led me to the 10/10 idea, it seemed like a giant leap forward. Now, however, it has been suggested that only 4 holdings might achieve similar benefits!
Wonder of wonders. I am still processing this revelation!

VELIX Portfolio Parameters: Benchmark Russell 100; Typical Number of Positions Long: 40-60, Short 20-30; Typical Net Exposure 100%; Typical Total Long Exposure 80-100% of net assets; Total Short Exposure 0-30% of net assets; Maximum Industry Exposure 20%; Maximum Position Size 6%; Minimum Market Cap $3B (at cost); Maximum Cash Position 20%.

And if the heir is a spouse at least 10 years younger than the deceased, there is a particular, more generous draw-down table in the case of a T-IRA. Not sure about 401k or 403b.
https://irahelp.com/forum-post/77387-ira-spouse-beneficiary-withdrawal-rules-different-when-10-year-age-difference/

There are different rules for the living and the dead. The rule regarding RMD calculations when there is a 10+ year difference in spouses' ages applies primarily to RMDs taken by the older spouse when both spouses are alive. No deceased here, just the living.
When it comes to IRAs inherited from deceased spouses, there's a good amount of flexibility but the 10 year age gap rule either doesn't apply (as described in the next paragraph) or is effectively moot (as described after that).
It is frequently better (and certainly simpler) for a younger surviving spouse to assume the inherited IRA as their own. That is, roll it into their own IRA. This pushes the RMD start date back to that of the surviving spouse.
But some surviving spouses need the inherited money now. By keeping money in an inherited IRA, they are allowed to withdraw it without penalty. They do have to take out at least as much as the deceased would have been required to take as RMD (if the deceased had reached RMD start age). But since the objective here is to have access to more money, that RMD won't really matter. Regardless of how it is calculated.

@Mona, even within categories, active manager styles vary, so it's OK to hold 1-2 active funds in the categories you hold. This isn't an issue with index funds.
I would be comfortable holding 25-75% in a fund.
Diversified Funds https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/307/diversified-nondiversified-funds

@Crash, that RMD amount calculation for younger spouse applies to T-IRAs and 401k/403b. There are several RMD calculators; the sponsor or the plan may provide calculations.:
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/required-minimum-distribution-calculator/
https://www.voya.com/tool/rmd-calculator

Often recommended limit of 5% applies to individual stocks to reduce company specific risks. So, people holding only stocks (i.e. no funds) should have a portfolio of 20+ stocks.
Must funds are diversified, so they can be held at much higher levels. May be limit the sector funds to 5-10%.

@yogibearbull what higher levels do you have in mind for diversified mutual funds?

I posted on it a few days ago and highlighted,
"Morningstar's John Rekenthaler starts with a simple but unusual observation that if 2 assets have the same long-term (LT) TR, then rebalancing will definitely benefit the TR."
In all other cases, rebalancing hurts TR, but does control risk.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62512/m-jr-on-rebalancing#latest"

Often recommended limit of 5% applies to individual stocks to reduce company specific risks. So, people holding only stocks (i.e. no funds) should have a portfolio of 20+ stocks.
Must funds are diversified, so they can be held at much higher levels. May be limit the sector funds to 5-10%.

And if the heir is a spouse at least 10 years younger than the deceased, there is a particular, more generous draw-down table in the case of a T-IRA. Not sure about 401k or 403b.
https://irahelp.com/forum-post/77387-ira-spouse-beneficiary-withdrawal-rules-different-when-10-year-age-difference/

https://velafunds.com/large-cap-plus.html
Investment Objective: Long-term capital appreciation.
As of 6/30,
Number of Holdings Long/(Short)/Options 66/(24)/60
Gross / Net Exposure 109%/93%
$67M AUM (inception date 9/30/2020)
At the bottom of the page are risk statistics.
@baseball_fan, Do you mind cluing us in what your goal with this fund is (i.e., what role you would like this fund to fill)?