As I commented above, you can get PSLDX for just $100 at Scottrade. But then the transaction fee ($17) would constitute 14.5% of the total committed ($117). And people say 5.75% front end loads are expensive!
Regarding Schwab - I tried a test trade for $100K and asked for the $76 transaction fee to be deducted from this. It wouldn't let the trade go through, because the net amount to invest didn't meet the $100K min. A test trade for $100K plus $76 transaction fee was allowed to go through. Well, except for the fact that Schwab recognized I didn't have that kind of cash in the account :-(

FYI: Multi-alternative-strategy mutual funds have been quietly fading into the background, reflecting the challenges facing alternative strategy mutual funds.
Of the 31 funds shut down this year across eight liquid alt fund categories tracked by Morningstar, 19 were cut from the multi-alternative category.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160725/FREE/160729962?template=printart

PSLDX is $100,000 min at Schwab, but you could have the transaction fee deducted from that already low entry point! I don't travel in those circles. Glad to go with DSENX.

I'm in TRGRX, which is TRP GLOBAL Real Estate. Comparing the domestic TRP fund, I see that the USA version is doing better... I'm not going to bail, just on this one, single observation, and I'm happy in TRGRX. I wonder if what is in TRREX is represented in my TRGRX? Anyway, I'd say add in increments, if you want to... Dollar-cost-averaging....I'm already 12.9% in RE, without even trying--- NOT all in TRGRX, which is just 6.11% of my portfolio. Interest rates may rise in the USA, but only a token blip upwards. Elsewhere, there is easing, accommodation, and more easing. And let's not forget the prospect of "helicopter money" falling from the sky. I think these policies are ruinous, but you can't fight city hall. As for individual stocks, I'm waiting for LXP to pull-back before starting a position there.

FYI: Marc Faber, the economist behind the "Doom, Boom & Gloom Report," sees gold as protection from a dangerous combination of tremendous government debt and massive bond-buying by central banks.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-marksjarvis-column-marc-faber-money-doom-0724-biz-20160722-column.html

On taxes, the unique "feature" of REITs is that almost all dividends are taxable as ordinary income (whichever bracket you are in). In contrast, most other stocks pay "qualified dividends" which are taxed at much lower rates (0% or 15% for most folks). So it is very possible that your REIT fund will have a higher tax cost than a stock dividend fund with two or three times the yield.
Your other questions are much more complicated, so I'm just taking the easy one here and leaving the rest to smarter people to answer.

TIBIX - $2.5M minimum (prospectus), $2.5K in a Fidelity IRA. Not quite the 10,000:1 ratio (prospectus vs. brokerage min) that one finds with PIMCO, but 1,000:1 is still pretty darned flexible.
One of the weaker aspects of Merrill Edge is that if it offers a share class NTF, it usually doesn't make the cheaper institutional shares available (with TF).
An exception is MWTIX. That share class carries a min of $3M. It used to be available at many brokerages for a min of $50K. Not small, but potentially reachable for some investors, especially as it can serve as a core fund. Now, Merrill is the only place I've found that still has this "low" min.

@msf:
>>The PIMCO prospectus gives the min as $1M. Brokerages generally have some flexibility in setting their own minimums.
Correct. Never seen this degree of flexibility.
Listed but unavail (to my accounts anyway) at ML.
Exact tracking w DSENX with remarkable performance.

The PIMCO prospectus gives the min as $1M. Brokerages generally have some flexibility in setting their own minimums. Fidelity may require $100K, but Scottrade requires just $100.

Re: "Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds."
MSF: Wow. Nice find! Apparently that's what I remember seeing. Not what I had long assumed. Still helps explain why their allocation funds are a better deal for investors than many others which do level allocation or administration fees.
As for TRRIX not being invested in any institutional class shares, don't be too sure. It does have a 20.3% weighting in PRCIX, Price's New Income Fund. PRCIX in turn holds institutional class shares in two other T. Rowe Price funds: Floating Rate and High Yield. In addition, both TRRIX and PRICX have the ability to invest in Summit Cash Reserves (not institutional - but having a $25,000 minimum) although they appear to have only trace exposure to that fund at present.
Thanks for your input. Interesting.
-
PS: Re TRPTX - I like that one better. .47% ER and invested in institutional shares. But can't quite afford the $1 mil minimum. :)

From a TRP early (October 1, 2004) prospectus:

Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds.

In other words, the savings in the underlying funds (best case) would bring the ER of the Retirement Funds down to zero (not below). The fee table in the prospectus shows each fund as having fees that are exactly offset by the savings, so that the net ER is exactly equal to the cost of owning the underlying funds. Not cheaper - these savings just explain how TRP offers funds of funds with no additional costs.
@Edmond: " Consequently, its my bull-headed belief that we investors should very much care how richly/cheaply priced the assets we are buying/holding are. ... So many investors are proudly 'cost-conscious', but then intentionally invest in a manner which is not 'price-conscious'. Tgt-funds seem to assiduously cling to that latter behavior. "
Perhaps this is just a matter of watch what I do, not what I say, but FWIW, what TRP says:

The allocations shown in the glide path are referred to as "neutral" allocations because they do not reflect any tactical decisions made by T. Rowe Price to overweight or underweight a particular asset class or sector based on its market outlook. The target allocations assigned to the broad asset classes (Stocks and Bonds), which reflect these tactical decisions resulting from market outlook, are not expected to vary from the neutral allocations set forth in the glide path by more than plus (+) or minus (-) five percentage (5%) points.

Generally speaking, this flexibility is the differentiating attribute between asset allocation funds and static balanced funds (whatever their selected balance is).

@hank - I'm always happy to admit I've overlooked something. (Well, not exactly happy, but willing :-)) So I went back and checked the holdings (1Q2016) of TRRIX.
None of the funds it holds are marked as institutional. In contrast, the holdings of TRPTX are all listed as
<fund name>-I, indicating institutional class.
As you mentioned, TRP's institutional class funds are open to retail investors; for TRPTX all you need is a million bucks. Though they are more welcoming if you buy the shares through a retirement plan at work.
TRRIX holdings: http://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phrpeq1.pdf
TRPTX holdings: http://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phrqiq1.pdf

One PSLDX minim appears to be $100k while M* says $1M. Other than that...

@msf - You and I can't buy their institutional shares of some of the underlying funds - which do carry lower costs (unless you've got whole lot more money than I think). :) I'll rest my case there.
However, I read somewhere (over a decade ago) that Price does actually give back a small portion of the underlying ERs to their allocation funds - on the theory that they save money in the long run by not having as many separate accounts to manage. Put another way, they'd rather have you put all your money into RPSIX than have you own smaller amounts of 12 different income funds. It made sense to me at the time, but unfortunately, I've never been able to verify it. (And I've searched their Prospectus's trying to verify)
You are completely correct on the second point. While TRRIX is classified a retirement fund by Price, alongside their target date funds, it is actually an asset allocation fund. I guess you could say that I avoid the target date variety of retirement funds (as most everyone here is probably inclined to do).
Edmond: No intent on my part to in any way promote Price, its funds, actively managed funds, any particular investing style, or allocation and target date funds. To each his own. What caught my eye was the lower than expected "average" fund expenses stated in Ted's linked article. In trying to make sense of those numbers I strayed too far afield. But you make some excellent points.

That's an interesting webpage, one I've visited in the past. But casual viewers should use those Vanguard-collected status with care.
Consider:
The span of those 'average returns' is 89 years. "Averaging returns" is a mathematical exercise, but investors don't experience smoothed-over 'averaged' returns. They experience sequential, erratic returns. Certainly, 20- or 30-somethings might look at those average returns and reasonably conclude to go "all-in" to equities. -- But it may not make a lot of difference for a typical young investor --- as they have relatively little saved. Most or all of income often going for raising kids, placing a down-payment on a home, student-debt servicing, kids' college or for some, 'living large'. By the time many households get round to saving serious dough (many never do!) they may be in their 40's or 50's. Are average 89-year returns something they should expect? What about when they begin the distribution-phase and are withdrawing assets (via RMDs, etc). Should they count on historical 'averaged' returns, or make some reasonable (and conservative) estimate of future returns based on asset prices? I believe John Bogle and others do offer those estimates in interviews from time to time, based on today's prices as a "set-up" for likely prospective returns. Buying long-term Treasurys in 1982 would have reasonably generated a certain forward-return over 30 years. Buying long-term Treasurys today, prospective-returns will be much more compressed.
Even if an investor could obtain a GUARANTEE of receiving those average returns (say in the form of an insurance company annuity etc.) at the terminal date (89 years), if they had to wait 89 years to receive that payout, would they be alive to collect it? My point: 89-year average returns, even if 'guaranteed' are not meaningful for individuals, if one is pushing up daisies when the guarantee is due to them. Ask Japanese equity investors who bought/held in 1988 and are still well under-water today, 30 years later. -- Hey in another 59 years they may enjoy the fruits of their patience....
Then too, the Vanguard site lists the historical return on a 100% bonds portfolio as 5.4%. Consider AGG, which is a proxy for the total (non-junk) US bond market. Presently, the SEC yield on AGG is 1.72%, with an average coupon of 3.2% The average-price of the bonds trade $9 over par. Perhaps 89 years from today, average-returns may match that. Nobody reading this will be around then. What are the likely returns over the next 1,3, 5, and 10 years? --- This would seem to be more relevancy. Are forward returns, using today as a starting point, likely to be closer to 89-year historical, averaged returns OR the SEC yield?

@MFO: In my opinion, when someone is considering their fund allocation to bonds/equities or both combined, I suggest they review Vanguard Portfolio Allocation Models from 1926-2015 that show the historical rate/risk returns from 100% stocks to 100% bonds and the various combinations of both.
Regards,
Ted
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations

"The average charge for a target-date fund is 0.73% ... The average stock fund charges 0.68%, while the average bond fund charges 0.54%."
I'm surprised the averages are that low. Perhaps if index funds and ETFs are included that's true.

What likely sounds more familiar to you are figures around 1.25%. That's what one gets by equal-weighting funds - giving as much weight to AMDEX (ER 3.38%, an index fund tracking the Israeli market) as to VFINX.
Here's a M* paper from 2014 giving weighted and unweighted (i.e. equal-weighted) averages of funds from 1990 through 2013 - overall averages and averages by fund type. The 2013 figures are very close to the current ones (e.g. 0.67% for weighted average of all US equity mutual funds). You're right that these figures include index funds, but they exclude ETFs, as those are not open end funds.

Contrary to industry practice, you'll find Price's asset allocation and target date funds generally a bit cheaper to own than if you bought the underlying funds yourself.

Theoretically, a fund can't be cheaper than buying the underlying funds. The TRP fund "will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds)." (from prospectus).
Most families may add fees on top of what it costs to own the underlying funds. But there's more going on here. Look at Fidelity - it tacks on a modest fee (about 8 basis points) to its Freedom Index target date funds. The underlying funds are cheap index funds with little profit margin to pay for the extra overhead of running target date funds. In contrast, Fidelity Freedom funds (that invest in actively managed funds) don't tack on an additional fee.
T. Rowe Price may be using index funds as some of the underlying funds, but they're known to be not particularly cheap. So TRP doesn't need to tack on additional fees.
Vanguard takes a different approach. Its target date funds invest in higher cost Investor class shares, rather than Admiral shares. That difference allows it to absorb the target funds' administrative costs without losing money.

The reason I prefer TRRIX to their other retirement funds is that this one doesn't follow any glide slope. (A bit of a control freak).

What it sounds like you want is an asset allocation fund, as opposed to a target date/retirement fund. TRP appears to call TRRIX a retirement fund (as opposed to a Personal Strategy, i.e. asset allocation fund), only because it is a fund of funds; not because it is a real retirement fund.
There are only a few parameters that differentiate various groups of hybrid funds:
1) Glide path yes/no (target date/asset allocation)
2) Fund of funds yes/no (minimal extra overhead for fund of funds, sometimes absorbed)
3) How aggressive (for target date funds, the glide path; for asset allocation the "neutral" mix)
4) Indexed (primarily for funds of funds - are the underlying funds index funds)
BTW, I applaud TRP for offering two different classes of funds with different glide paths, so that one can choose the level of aggressiveness.

A couple things:
I think the TERM 'multi-asset fund' (with or without income) is a creation of fund-industry marketing types.
Any old-fashioned balanced fund which emphasizes income is a 'multi-asset income fund'. (MAIF) I own one, its called Vanguad Wellesley.
Some newer MAIFs add in riskier sleeves-- junk, MLPs, whole-loan products, etc. etc. They are simply stepping out on the risk-spectrum. --- the higher the yield (i.e. the bigger the spread), the bigger the risk.
While I still own some VWINX, my thinking on hybrids (MAIFs or otherwise) has evolved over the past 3-5 years. I generally eschew them, in favor of single-asset products. I suspect that 'bundling' assets has the effect of obscuring how good the manager of each asset-sleeve within the 'bundle' is. [Take OAKBX, for example. The stocking picking was always very good, but Oakmark never had much of a bond desk. They usually loaded their bond-sleeve with Treasurys (US & Canadian) and that was it. The stock picking "carried" the fund overall for many years. Til it didn't.] How does an individual investor get comfortable that each of the asset-sleeves within a hybrid (or "MAIF) is at least average -- and hopefully above so?)
Then too, every asset class will encounter an investing environment with a lousy "setup". At those times, its best to UNDERweight such assets. Most hybrid products have allocation guidelines which require weightings stay within a certain range. Having witnessed 3 massive boom-bust cycles this century (tech, mortgage, energy), I am uncomfortable with "forced" allocations. The lower rates go, the more convinced I am, we are in the 'pleasant' phase of a 4th boom-bust cycle.
Another thing: all commingled products, MAIFs included, assess a MER equally, across all AUM in the fund. But is it really serving investors best to levy (for example only) a flat 1.25% for managing the equity-sleeve, and the same 1.25% for the bond-sleeve. -- Especially if that bond sleeve is often Treasurys, Agencies, and investment-grade paper. --- And especially now that bond coupons barely will cover that MER....). I mean you can find superlative dedicated-bond managers for ~0.50%. Paying 1.25% for the bond sleeve of a hybrid fund seems like you are paying for that bond manager's Alfa Romeo...
FPACX is a good example. It has a superior performance, granted (though performance seems to have suffered with growing assets). It levies a 1.09% on AUM. 34% if AUM is sitting cash. Institutional MMFs are paying NOTHING! I'm not arguing Romick isn't prudent in holding cash --- rather that he should not be charging investors 1.09% for the cash-sleeve. A hybrid can get away with this. Dedicated-asset funds are less prone to charging investors for NOT investing their money.
I'd much prefer to choose single-asset "best of breed" managers for the major asset classes myself. In some cases (say L/C US equities) the "manager" may be Standard & Poors (i.e the index). In others (foreign equities, S/C, REITs, bonds), active managers who persistently excel may be able to be identified. As an asset-class "smells bubbly", I can trim back, rather than relying on a professional allocator, who is frankly, not at all concerned if Edmund's nest-egg is halved due to a forced allocation in a hybrid product.
Just my opinion.

FYI: It is easy to confuse day-to-day noise with actual and significant signals. If you are merely reacting to the latest market action, then what you have is not a plan — you have an instinctual, fear-driven reaction, and it’s the makings of a disaster.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/given-the-brexit-brouhaha-how-did-your-investments-hold-up/2016/07/22/a7bc1198-4d03-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html