@Crash
In wonderful English grammar, I will state: "I don't see no barking dog with PRWCX and no need to take part of the fund and escort it to another place."
I am sure you are aware of the category return status of this fund over the years, per M* or just the numbers, if you want to compare at some other site.
For the past 15 years through the good and the bad, you would be hard pressed to find better in this category and/or "build your own mix".
So what if it is 37% of your portfolio! Do you think you can remove half (or whatever % you are considering) of the fund and redirect to other fund type holdings and receive better performance from the monies?
I'd keep this one where is it at now; and reinvest the distributions back into the fund and let this one simmer along.
Play with the other holdings if you choose.
There are folks in the world of investments who desire to have this fund in their portfolio, but do not have access (closed), except for openings in some retirement programs.
You may choose to read through some of the list of "things" at this link to help with your decision. I personally would use the list of goodies to find a reason(s) to convince oneself of "why I should reduce the holdings of PRWCX ."
Disclaimer: my economic studies degree is from "Whatsamatta U". My suggestion(s) is free and may hold similar "value". I am not affiliated in any method with TR Price. Lastly, I am listening to "Days of Future Passed", by the Moody Blues; which may or may not affect my thinking at this time.
Good luck.
Catch

This makes me recall my foray into investing in the earlier years of dot com boom. I cost averaged all the way up. Then when market crashed, I was a deer caught in headlights.
$250 per month for 20 months I invested. I thought I was so smart.
If I had invested $5000 in one shot, I would have seen my investment more than double, then crash to still above $5000. I would have held that fund. It is too disgusting to discuss how much that would be worth today. Fact of the matter is DCA brought my balance down to way below $5000. I'm simply quoting $5000 as a number here.
I think above episode directly contributed to my hair loss and my cynical attitude toward all experts claiming DCA as the only way for investors. In the long run it might work out yes. As someone has said however, in the long run everyone is dead.
Bottom line, whether one DCAs or not, and whether it worked out or not, will depend on what happens in the future which no one can predict. When you buy will always matter more than What you buy. I would say with this much money, LSI half and DCA the rest.

Crash ... if you're concerned about being overweight equities than yes - you should reduce your holdings in PRWCX. It is foremost an equity fund. I took your question to be "fund-specific" rather than an allocation question. Perhaps I misinterpreted it. Only you know your own needs and risk tolerance.
Here's what you should consider: PRWCX has been around for over 25 years. Its worst year was a 27% loss in 2008. Bad as that sounds, many equity funds lost 50% or more in '08. TRIGX lost 45% that year.
Re the "talking heads" - If they're saying equities are overpriced and likely to decline and that you should reduce equity holdings and gravitate to cash and bonds, they make some sense. I might even agree. (Some of Price's "funds-of-funds" would serve that purpose with their varying allocations to cash and bonds. Since the allocations differ by fund, the math could get tricky for you.)
If these "talking heads" are telling you to sell a solid conservative equity fund like PRWCX and split the money up among 3 or more equity funds (for safety) that makes no sense. If three funds each fall by 35% your net loss is still 35% - same as if one fund fell by 35%. No safety in numbers alone.
My largest holdings - for whatever benefit it might offer:
RPSIX (multi-asset income) 16%
OAKBX (conservative equity) 15%
TRRIX (equity/bond hybrid) 15%
PRNEX (equity/NR) 12%

You've got no developed market funds (New Asia is mostly emerging market, and you're working on dumping it anyway). You might look at TRIGX or TROSX. I'm not suggesting PSILX in part because it invests in PRASX, which you already own directly (and don't seem to want). And you do seem amenable to adding a pure equity fund.
(For anyone who thinks I follow M* blindly, notice that their analysts rate TRIGX "neutral", in part because the manager has been there "only" five years.)
If it doesn't matter to you who owns what, then I'd suggest picking the best T. Rowe Price funds for the account(s) you have there, and the best funds available in the 403(b), subject only to the constraint that you want to come up with a particular overall allocation.

What a great sleep-inducer. Must be a student of William F. Buckley. "Subliminal realization" That's a good one!
Couldn't make it all the way to the end. What did he finally recommend people invest in now? (Gold I'd suspect.)
I've watched Grant off-and-on for many years. He's never been a cheerful soul. Further, I think you'd be hard pressed to go back over the past decade and find any "actionable advice" from him that made you money during that period.
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2015/03/jim-grantthe-guy-whos-been-wrong-almost.html

Dude, check out the latest Semi-Annual Report.
Fully three Royce funds are now changing their names. Some make sense because the old names never made sense (Royce Value Plus, for example...where was the "plus" under Chip Skinner's stewardship ? Perhaps the plus was in the 6 or so share classes/ticker symbols for the fund).
A handful of funds have new managers/co-managers.
Royce selectively includes or excludes performance criteria on its funds to put funds in the best light (for example, some funds have upside/downside capture ratios for past 1 years reported, others do not, but have past 5- and 10-year, one newer fund doesn't have even a 1 year even though its been around since 2011, Royce Micro-Cap Disovery, ever the laggard which has been around since at least 2004 has no upside/downside reported; same for Royce Value Plus, I mean, Royce Smaller Companies Growth). Some funds have trailing 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-year performance reported, others only have 5- and 10-year. Typos ? Perhaps, but Royce has done this type of thing before, most notably during the depths of the great recession.
Share classes galore ! Six for Royce Opportunity, Royce Smaller/Small-ish Companies Growth Fund (formerly Royce Value Plus), Royce Small Cap Value (formerly Royce Value) and Royce Pennsylvania, seven for Royce Total Return and Royce Premier, three for Royce Micro Cap. You'll be relieved, no doubt, to learn that Royce Micro-Discovery (which was once Discovery) which rarely beat the benchmark and seemed to have very low active-management value-add under Mr. Necakov, has retained its one share class (but has a new co-manager).
And...my personal favorite for some time now...Royce allows several funds to have 10% or more of their holdings in international stocks (and handful are at or above 15-20%), but still benchmarks against all-US indexes.
Same old shenanigans at Royce. If you can't find `em, grind `em. Feed the beast.

I sold my one Calamos Fund soon after Gary Black joined. To me he personifies everything wrong with the mutual fund industry. Analogy is a bad hollywood actor who for some reason we keep seeing in movies. Finally, Gary Black will be gone and IMO that's good for Calamos fund owners.
At some point of time something does not seem right with a fund company.
He (Black) did what we needed him to do...
i have great distribution to grow the business...
...
Who cares about the investors in our funds? ...sorry, scratch that, just thinking aloud
Best to exit. I didn't think I would ever have said it, but now I'm watching Artisan closely. There are too many pressures in the real world to maintain ones honesty and integrity. Royce fell by the wayside some years back. I really hope Artisan does not.

Several of my favorite funds are mentioned on this thread, VHCOX which I've owned since 2001, and POAGX, since 2007. As you can imagine, they've both had some style drift as their assets have expanded...not that I'm going to complain too loudly though. Much less SC than before.
Bee...One of the funds I've recently purchased for my rollover IRA which I believe will be a nice complement to these 2, would be SCMFX. It is a small/mid blend, and if you do a performance comparison between that and POAGX, you will see a fairly even performance match until the biotechs powered the Primecap fund ahead over the last 2 years. SCMFX has been profiled on MFO, and it held up fairly well over the recent turmoil perhaps due to the additional value component.
Per your comment as well, I was also intrigued by the Eventide family, and have a starting position in ETNHX. More spice than my VGHCX holding, but I am thinking this is a lower risk way to get exposure to the biotechs than an individual holding, and I wanted to stay away from the ETFs.
press

Its my understanding that stock market gyrations over the past 15 years have made millennials disproportionately reluctant to invest the stock market....even if they have the income and savings needed to do so. Another big near term dip in the market might be the nail in the coffin for many of them as far as considering stock market investing goes.

I never fall in love with a fund manager or for that matter even care who he is. I see far too many who are in funds that have lagged for the past 1, 3, and 5 years (some severely) yet refuse to sell because of their confidence in the fund manager. That and the fact they can't admit they were wrong.

Hi @bee, with the kind of performance POAGX (which I've owned as well for quite a few years) has put up, who needs a "yang". I have grown to view the volatility as nice opportunities to add to my investment. To be fair, I've also rebalanced along the way so most of the time my overall investment isn't growing as quickly as it would have if I didn't do that. It's a gold fund for M* and as usual I find it utterly confusing that they can talk about their favorite active mid-cap funds without talking about POAGX, especially when they include a handful of closed funds.

This table is interesting. Using the 1928 to 2014 time period includes the negative impacts resulting from the 1929 crash and the crashes in the 30's. So, it hopefully provides a fairly good "worst case" scenario. The results support the view that including at least some stocks in an investment mix is important for most buy and hold investors even during retirement. I was surprised to see the size of the worst case losses for bonds over all holding periods as well as the frequency of losses over all those periods. That's a warning when looking forward 20 years from today! The resilience of the balanced portfolio was also impressive. It would be interesting to see how using a bond portfolio that included corporate bonds might impact the results.

FYI: Until recently we had gone several years without a double-digit decline in US stocks. For long-term investors, that length of time can lead to a false sense of security and entitlement—believing that stocks should always go up and they have a right to consistently-positive returns. But that has never been the case; if it were, long-term historical and future returns wouldn’t be as high as they have been or are expected to be. The chart below looks at the periodic returns of stocks, bonds and balanced portfolios from 1928-2014, net of inflation.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.servowealth.com/resources/articles/stock-markets-wake-call

FYI: What if stocks experience their third separate bear market in under twenty years? What would that do to the psychology of investors?
Regards,
Ted
https://theirrelevantinvestor.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/patterned-by-birth/

Ashmore is nevermore.
ECYAX (Class A)
Less than 5 years old.
AUM $100,000.
-15% (negative) return for 1 year
1.12% net ER after a 1.6% waiver
4% front load (Class A)
A foreign currency fund, it's been going head-to-head against the strong U.S. dollar.
Sign of the times.
Thanks to The Shadow for posting.

FYI: The Vanguard Group Inc., which has for years voiced skepticism about the fast rise of exotic index-investing strategies, has hired a top researcher away from one of the best-known promoters of smart beta, Research Affiliates.
Valley Forge, Pa.-based Vanguard, the largest mutual fund firm and the second-largest ETF manager, is bringing Research Affiliates analyst Denis B. Chaves to its quantitative equity group, according to the leader of that group, John Ameriks.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150908/FREE/150909935?template=printart

WHY 4% COULD FAIL
Sep 1, 2015 • Wade Pfau & Wade Dokken

The 4% rule isn't worth much. I posted this in another thread on how to estimate for retirement.
-------------------------------------------------------
Too many assumptions to go into there. Monte Carlo and others are like many rule of thumb (e.g. 4% rule) estimators - good for generalities but not good for the specific situations.
Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc.
This is my 2015 budget own home, no debt, single person
Basic Living
House
2,117 RE Tax
2,556 HOA
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,522 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
82 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,929 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
59 Misc
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,029 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
11,211 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,661 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living - 1
91 Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
Good Sam
583
Incremental Living - 2
6,256 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,256
6,839 Total Discretionary
28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
Let's assume I don't have any pension or SS, and no inflation for now. What do I need?
$114,000 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$407,143 earning 7% to get to 28,500/year expenses
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$621,143 to 671,143 total excluding house
Does a person need all that money? Maybe not if the person will collect SS. The closer they are to collecting SS would affect that - e.g. if they are within 2 years they could have less money in near cash.
This is not meant to be a perfect example.
Now let's use Junkster's info on SS $1294 monthly - 15,528/yr
$28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
-$15,528 SS
$12,972 to be funded
$51,888 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$185,143 earning 7% to get to 12,972/year expenses to be funded
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$337,031 to 357,031 total excluding house
Both of these examples are better than monte carlo and top down rule of thumb.
There are two reasons I can think of that the top down method is the most discussed:
1. Advisors use them to scare people into buying their services
2. Budgeting is boring and most don't people don't have one nor do most know where they spend their money.

Perhaps we here are already at the, a little bit "nuts" stage, to be investors and discussing this fine "art" form at a magical electronic interface with global connections.
I used to have a similar amount of fun falling into the 8 foot wide creek that flowed behind my childhood home of many years.
Take care.

I guess I'm ducking the inflation issue by saying that one can get inflation protection "for free".
If one wanted to go pure cash and account for inflation, running simulations would seem to be the easiest(?) way to do that. But no matter what number of years you came up with, there would always be some small probability of inflation being worse than the "worst case" used. That's why I preferred to duck the inflation question entirely.
This question provides yet another example of how the rich get richer. If you've got money to burn, you invest more in stocks. Worst case, you've got enough to live on. On average, the expectation return is higher than the "mattress solution". This is not an option for people who can't take a 30% risk of having a shortfall.

Just skimmed the article but the bottom line seems to be that 35 years (for a 65 year old couple) is now considered to be a conservative estimate. Meaning, more and more are expected to live past 95. I simply don't see that and feel we all overestimate how long we will live. My mom is 95 and has but one lady friend older than her and she knows zero males over 95. And trust me, being the social butterfly my mom is and has been, she has known many a people in her days.
As for the 4% or whatever withdrawal rate, doesn't the size of one's nest egg count for something? Meaning, a debt free couple with a $3,000,000 nest egg who lives half way frugally could just live off their principal and not worry about the whims of the stock and bond markets. I realize I live in a low cost/income area of the U.S but in my region a single debt free retiree gets by just fine on $36,000 annually and a couple $42,000.