Hi, Vintage. Your comments on companies getting too big, getting bought out by bigger fund companies, and not being able to do what made them good in the first place...these are quite good. The best example that I see is MFLDX, which is still run by a gifted manager. The fund did exceedingly well for a number of years, added more assets, still did well, then was bought by Mainstay. Once that happened, it seems the trolley went off the tracks. Assets more than tripled in one year, and the management team let their risk parameters shift. Performance tanked, then assets fled (typical), the fund now has fewer dollars than it did before the takeover, and performance is still bad.
I do take exception to your comments about Thornburg. I have made a number of visits at their headquarters and believe they are one of the very few truly independent fund groups, both in terms of how they treat their fund shareholders, and their investment philosophy. Being isolated from the noisy financial centers of the world, they really do take a long-term view of things. Their basic fixed-income offerings are run with a barbell style, very unusual, but successful. Their Income Builder TIBIX has one of the very best long-term records, and it has been totally consistent in its investment approach since the beginning. In fact, just about all of their funds have strikingly good long-term records. If they launch a new fund and it does not pan out, they waste no time in closing it, unlike a lot of shops that work to take in more and more assets in the hopes that asset size alone will somehow make things right. It will be interesting to see what happens to THDIX now that star manager Kaufman was lured away by more money at Artisan. Assets are less than half of what they were prior to his leaving.
We use several of their funds in our client models, mostly because we know what we are getting.

Looking at the current political scene, I see no shortage of fear premium. (I've deleted some earlier specifics, not wanting to precipitate a political debate)
I can tell you gold is not for the timid - whatever else one may think of it. The cyclic swings in value are huge. (It can quadruple in price over just a few years and than lose half its value just as fast.)
Time spans between peaks and bottoms are great - often lasting decades. I don't know anyone who believes gold (or other hard assets) will produce the same long term appreciation as stocks in good companies will. That's not why people buy it.

It's very gratifying to read your postings, MikeM and prinx. :)
A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with a pro. He was great. Time well spent.

I've decided that I've developed the mutual fund sickness of being a fund collector. I'm sure there are others who suffer from this malady. The first step is admitting to the problem, so.....with that in mind, I've decided to consolidate my portfolio so it's more manageable and not duplicative. The first step is to whittle down some of my balanced funds, which are numerous. Currently, I hold VWENX, VTMFX in taxable accounts and FBALX, JABAX and GAOAX in tax-deferred accounts. The tax deferred accounts are easier to deal with, but VWENX poses more of a problem because I've amassed considerable capital gains and a sale would trigger a big tax bill. OTOH, VWENX is not a tax efficient holding to begin with, but I purchased it many years ago when I knew nothing about the concept of tax efficient holdings. I do hold VTMFX in a taxable account due to the municipal income generated by it. Any suggestions for consolidating these funds? Holding five balanced funds seems a bit much to me. Thanks in advance.

Crash,congratulations that you chose PRWCX to be over allocated.
So am I and I have been very pleased with my choice for over 20 years.
Your investment experience has led you to this position. So........don't change it as you might regret it later. PRWCX is a diversified fund and the best I know. If you want more bond diversification then sell some other funds and open up an account with PONDX.
prinx

I actually like the idea of creating a mechanism that funds bucket one throughout the entire investment time frame by taking profits during periods of market out performance. Always nice to have some dry powder for emergencies, buying opportunities, or to reduce portfolio volatility.

Yes, I agree completely and was fortunate that my retirement happened after a multi-year run-up, with the accumulation of bucket one assets during that period. I'd rather be lucky than good.
The key benefit of this bucketing approach is that it allows a retiree to not obsess about what is happening in the market since you have several years of expenses already in pocket. I personally differ a bit from what M* lays out, in that I have more years of funds in bucket one, but take a bit more aggressive approach in how the overall funds are invested.
press

I'm looking at this strategy backwards.
If I were 11+ years away from retirement I would hold only bucket three, but add NAESX to the portfolio. Percentages could be adjusted in bucket three to make it more or less aggressive depending on individuals age and risk tolerance.
When 3-11 years away from retirement hold buckets 2 & 3. Again, phase into this bucket 2 over the 8 years by using profits raised from bucket 3 or from new investment contributions.
When you are 1-2 years away from retirement be sure to raise enough cash to create bucket 1 by reallocating from buckets 2 & 3. Continue reallocating into bucket one from buckets 2 & 3 throughout retirement for distribution needs and during periods of bucket out performance.
I actually like the idea of creating a mechanism that funds bucket one throughout the entire investment time frame by taking profits during periods of market out performance. Always nice to have some dry powder for emergencies, buying opportunities, or to reduce portfolio volatility.

PIMIX / PONDX is doing very well so far this year. Their good picks are clearly compensating for the bad ones. The Petrobras bet hasn't worked out in the short term, but it still might within the next few years. They got bonds paying almost 9% from a company with huge oil reserves and a sovereign standing behind them. Of course no one wants the oil now, and that sovereign is in bad shape, but that could change in a couple of years (especially the oil part.) I personally think the odds are good (though less than 100%) that Petrobras won't default and they'll keep clipping those 9% coupons until they decide to move into something else.
Anyway, you make a bunch of bets on 9% bonds, most work out, a few don't, and you've got a nice return for a bond fund.
I don't own PIMIX, because I don't want any excitement in my bond fund, but those guys ain't dumb and have done well for their investors.

Lots of valuable insights here. M* X-RAY shows my portf now looks like this:
8% cash (but held in the funds, not by me.)
US 41
Foreign 10
Bonds 40 (Of that 40%, 29.2% is in dedicated bond-only funds: DLFNX, PREMX, PRSNX.)
"other" 2
Bond quality is LOW, with 67% at Moderate risk, 22% with Limited risk.
Equities: 44 growth, 34 Core and 22 Value.
Large cap: 62.72
Mid and small-caps. 37.26
...If the 8% cash position (aggregate) were invested in equities, I'd be just a baby-step from a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, which pleases me. I'd like to have more overseas exposure, but I think this much smaller foreign chunk at the current time is prudent. Asia is the future. But I could let a lotta years pass waiting and hoping for it to be fruitful. I have only 1.57 in UK and 3.26 in Europe Developed. Emerging Europe = 0.71%, and that's fine with me. Japan is at 1.3%.
I have found 2 rather good Balanced funds in PRWCX and MAPOX, though the latter is not performing as well as the former. MAPOX pays quarterly divs, and I like that. PRWCX pays only in December. That's fine, too.
The exercise of spelling all of this out to you guys is a response to a very good question or two from ibartman. ALL of the input is valuable, and of course, there's no perfect answer or resolution.
One last thought: I'm intending to invest all of this for heirs. And the tiny, new position (joint with wifey) in the electric utility PNM will grow by tiny baby-steps each month, too. I chose it from among a list of companies offering DSPP, and after examining it. I know that utilities are going nowhere, but this one looks like a good relative prospect in a category I didn't have any money in, yet.
http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNYS/PNM/quote.html
I'm grateful to you all. Vintage Freak, from among your replies, is most concerned about the size of my PRWCX holding. I'm taking his words seriously, but does that "rule of thumb" about keeping holdings down to 20% of total or lower a good idea, here? (10%, per VF.) It's not a pure equity play. Maybe M* rates it to be riskier than it really is...And I'm not ignoring heezsafe.
As it is, I'd prefer not to collect any more funds. With wife's 403b, I'm up to 11 (eleven.) That's enough for me.
I made good profit in TRAMX, waited too long to get out, but still happy about it. I funneled that profit (back at the New Year) into PRWCX precisely because PRWCX is domestic and thus "safer," and riding high in a core-fund category.
New IRA money is earmarked for MAPOX. I think I WILL stand-pat. Thanks, all.

I dunno man. 10%, i.e. 10 funds. Seems like a reasonable number to manage. That's how I'm constructing each of my portfolios at each of the brokerages. If you like 9 or 13...it's YOUR portfolio.
One can buy that Fido fund that invests in 4 indices (I think) and be diversified across asset classes that way. Why does not everyone pile into that fund? Frankly, I'm not sure what the basis of discussion is any more.
Here's my story and I'm sticking to it. In my 401K I have stopped investing in bonds. I own cash, some S&P 500 index, and some S&P 400 index. That's it. In my my taxable portfolios, knowing how good/bad active fund managers are it is prudent to diversify manager risk. If one is going to invest in Active fund managers, I don't see why one would bet the farm on a single fund / fund company. It makes no sense whatsoever. 37% of portfolio in one actively managed fund should given anyone pause. Heck, put 100% in PRWCX then. Then why ask question?
One decides portfolio should have 60% stocks 40% bonds. One can buy XYZ balanced fund. There is a 1 in zillion possibility Bernie Madoff was cloned and his clone will start managing XYZ Balanced. 3 years later, one will come and tell VF he is an idiot for not investing entire portfolio in XYZ Balanced. VF will rue the day but go to sleep knowing he invested in ABC, DEF, GHI, .... Balanced funds knowing chance Bernie Madoff's clone managing any one of his funds is now 1 in gazillion.

@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.