AOA
iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF
stock NYSE ETF

There's absolutely nothing wrong with 8 funds if you have someone managing it.
Consider a wonderful one-fund like AOA or AOR. These funds-of-funds contains IVV (S&P 500), IUSB (domestic bonds), IDEV and IEMG (ex-US equities), IAGG (ex-US bonds), IJH and IJR (S&P mid- and small cap). Seven low-cost index funds. All great. I wouldn't want to manage seven funds when I could manage 4 or 3 or 2 or 1, but a professional who is harvesting tax losses could very reasonably do well with 7 or 8. It's still simple, still diversified, each fund follows an index, sounds good to me. If it was in an IRA and there were no tax games to play, I'm not sure why anyone would want more than AOA or AOR.

A few observations over the last year or so. AOA which is a "fund of funds" that is fairly close to 80% VT/20% BND has exhibited less volatility compared to VT. AOR which is more of a 60%/40% stocks/bonds has exhibited even less volatility compared to AOA. If bonds keep you in the game when people are headed for the exits then yes they do serve some sort of value, even if only psychological.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with 8 funds if you have someone managing it.
Consider a wonderful one-fund like AOA or AOR. These funds-of-funds contains IVV (S&P 500), IUSB (domestic bonds), IDEV and IEMG (ex-US equities), IAGG (ex-US bonds), IJH and IJR (S&P mid- and small cap). Seven low-cost index funds. All great. I wouldn't want to manage seven funds when I could manage 4 or 3 or 2 or 1, but a professional who is harvesting tax losses could very reasonably do well with 7 or 8. It's still simple, still diversified, each fund follows an index, sounds good to me. If it was in an IRA and there were no tax games to play, I'm not sure why anyone would want more than AOA or AOR.

A few observations over the last year or so. AOA which is a "fund of funds" that is fairly close to 80% VT/20% BND has exhibited less volatility compared to VT. AOR which is more of a 60%/40% stocks/bonds has exhibited even less volatility compared to AOA. If bonds keep you in the game when people are headed for the exits then yes they do serve some sort of value, even if only psychological.

What the phrase means is that it’s not rational to risk the money that would cover your income needs if you already have it.
People often say “my portfolio has reached the point that it covers my income needs” but they base that on whatever the value of an all stocks portfolio is today. What if it crashes by 75% over the next 12 months? Will it still “cover your income needs”?
While that is an extreme scenario, it was the point Bernstein, who coined that phrase, was going for. He argued that portfolio should become RISKIER only AFTER one’s income needs are met with a TIPS ladder, or similar “safe” vehicle.
The counter argument is that longevity risk often requires some form of growth engine and that bonds slow that.
My take?
I like fixed-allocations and I do think both portfolio size AND current income play a role on asset allocation. For example, my portfolio is 70/30 even as I sit about 10 years from retirement at age 40. That’s because I save and invest a significant amount every year (six figures) so I am less concerned with not having enough in stocks and instead want to have “safer” vehicles. My 30% bonds includes TIPS and a work-sponsored Stable Value fund.
If stocks continue to go on a tear over the next decade, I can see a scenario where I let them ride and move away from 70/30. After all, my largest taxable position is AOA - itself a 80/20 fund - and I can see myself investing less in the few discreet fixed-income funds that tilt my number towards 30% today IF I feel strongly that my bond allocation “meets my income needs”.