FYI: Mutual funds may be able to charge their investors who rush to cash out during periods of market stress under a rule being considered by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150912/FREE/150919960?template=printart

@VintageFreak said

Who cares about the investors in our funds? ...sorry, scratch that, just thinking aloud

No, don't scratch that question; no apologies necessary. It is precisely at these turning points when we need to start to scrutinize just what is going down, because we now have a 10 yr. list, that continues to grow, of formerly up-and-coming MF companies, smallish, tightly-focused, with very good results, that have stalled, become mundane, and in some cases have driven themselves into the ditch. And what do most of them have in common? Either they (1) consented to be acquired by a larger player, or (2) went public with an IPO. And then sooner (1-3 yrs) or later (3-5 yrs), the decline---at first barely perceptible--- becomes obvious, after which things just never take a turn for the better.
So I think a better question to ask, when these transitional steps are taken, after which these outfits are no longer and will never be what they once were again, is:

From this point forward, when you say and think that everything you do will be in the best interest of your shareholders, to whom are you referring--- the shareholders in your company, or the shareholders invested in your mutual funds?

FYI: Stock market volatility has sent taxable-bond CEF share prices spiraling downward, but is this the best deal since the financial crisis?
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=713949

FYI: Jim Simons was a mathematician and cryptographer who realized: the complex math he used to break codes could help explain patterns in the world of finance. Billions later, he’s working to support the next generation of math teachers and scholars. TED’s Chris Anderson sits down with Simons to talk about his extraordinary life in numbers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/09/jim-simons-the-mathematician-who-cracked-wall-street/print/

Do you see any troubling signs @ Artisan?

Maybe I'm paranoid and have a death wish. I was not happy with them starting their new Emerging Markets fund when they already have one that sucks. I do not think highly of Thornburg or their alumni. They are bull market wonders.
Normally new Artisan fund meant I automatically bought it. I'm not buying their latest fund.

I would suggest a cautious hedged portfolio with no guarantee this would out perform
PRWCX whose managers make an asset allocation decision for you . Clearly you should feel free to substitute any of these funds for a substantially identical fund you already own. Exchange slightly less than half the funds you have in PRWCX as follows(assuming the amount you will reallocate/invest is X
Hedge against deflation with The long term Govt fund PRULX or the etf TLT 10%X
Hedge against inflation with I bonds (in taxable account) and TIPs and the Floating rate fund PRFRX in your tax deferred account 10%x
Go with a popular choice for country diversification Global allocation RPGAX 10%X
Hedge against picking the wrong bond fund with spectrum income 30%
Hedge against management mistakes with the total stock market POMIX 30%X
Hedge against the stock market going down with PRWBX 10%X
and use it as a fund source to rebalance into stocks(not into underperforming bond funds)
The resulting portfolio may be a bit too diversified for your taste but should help somewhat if the world is unkind . Its clearly less risky than PRWCX though it may or may not be less rewarding.

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.

maybe it's just me, but I would never hold > 10% of my portfolio in just one fund.

Why is 10% your number? I don't like holding more than 10 funds in total, which means I'll certainly have a few funds over 10%... IMO, at 10+ funds the marginal benefit for each greater than 10 is very little and there's going to be little impact on risk reduction.

@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

Crash:
1. In isn't clear (to me) that you have come up with an overall asset allocation that you want to "get to". I think that you need to do that.
2. As a TRP investor, I am pretty sure that you have access, on TRP's own website, to Morningstar Premium Portfolio Tools, that you might otherwise have to pay for. You should use them, and enter your portfolio into the tool, and see where you stand (versus the "goal", described in #1). Call them if you are unfamiliar, and ask about it.
[I believe that there are also TRP/M* Portfolio Stress Testing tools, as well, but have not used them myself.]
3. Identify where you are +/-, and identify the lowest cost (or otherwise "best") TRP funds to get there. Simply put, is your overall stock/bond mix OK or not?.... etc.
4. (If TRP has a "directed dividends" option like Vanguard does...) You might use "directed dividends" from all of your funds to gradually invest in a particular fund or funds in which you are light.
5. Set a goal - time period - for which you want to get to your goal. If say -short (immediately) or longer (say a year) then figure out what changes you need to make every month to get there over desired time period and do it.
6. Or something like that.
NOTE: For example..... Looking at PRWCX's 2014 annual report (page 18, Investor Class). In 2014, the fund paid out $2.62 in distributions, which was more than 10% of the Yr End 2013 value of $25.66. In a month or so [?], TRP will post estimates of distributions for the current year.
If you stop reinvesting the distributions, but "direct" them to the funds in your retirement accounts in which you are short, you might be able to effect at least a part of your re-allocation "automagically".

Here is what this rat would bo.
I'd like to know a little about the investor's risk tolerance; but, since that is not noted ... I'd take the conserative route.
To keep things simple let's say the investor's tolerance for risk called (when fully invested) for a balanced allocation of 10% cash, 40% bonds & 50% stocks. With the current uncertainty of interest rate risk (rising interest rates) and stocks considered to be fully valued (by some) I'd invest up to the low point of my allocation for each asset (bonds & stocks) thus keeping the rest in cash. Thus I might average in to about 25% to bonds, 25% to stocks and keep 50% in cash. From there I'd put the rest to work (over time) based upon market and interest rate movement.
To manage interest rate risk they could ladder the bond allocation spread among a short term bond fund (40%), a intermediate term bond fund (40%) and a little to a long term bond fund (20%). Then within equities diverfication is important so I'd slit equity with about 60% to 75% being in domestic large caps, mid caps and small caps along with putting the residual 25% to 40% to work in foreign positions which would include some exposure to emerging markets.
Just a lot to think on for a first time investor sitting on a pile of cash wanting to enter the market. And, with such little experience, I tip toe in while reading as much as I could about investing. Being a good saver is not the same as being an investor.

from the Vanguard study, on which this blog note is largely based:
On average, by how much does LSI outperform DCA?
To calculate the average magnitude of LSI outperformance, we calculated the average ending values for a 60%/40% portfolio following rolling 10-year investment periods. In the United States, 12-month DCA led to an average ending portfolio value of $2,395,824, while LSI led to an average ending value of $2,450,264, or 2.3% more. [...] It is important to reiterate that these are average returns. Actual experience during any given period in the future may be much higher or lower, depending on market trends.

Measuring the dispersion of outcomes and risk-adjusted performance
[...] The 50th-percentile observation is positive (confirming LSI’s average outperform- ance, relative to 12mo DCA), but there is a fairly wide distribution of outcomes. Obviously, it is possible for either strategy to underperform the other over a given period—potentially by a significant amount. [...] Despite its lower average ending portfolio values, a DCA strategy might be more favorable if the risk-adjusted returns of a DCA portfolio during those first 12 months exceed the risk-adjusted returns of an LSI portfolio during that period. However ... this is not the case. LSI has provided better returns and risk-adjusted returns, on average.

FYI: Thanks to her successful side business, Alyssha has saved $130,000. But it’s earning a paltry rate of interest in her savings account. “My husband and I were going to put the annual maximum into our 401K Vanguard accounts. We were going to invest the remainder in a taxable account. But we’re afraid that stocks might drop. What should we do?”
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/-invest-a-lump-sum-or-dollar-cost-average-just-ask-a-rat

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%

@Crash Well, having many of these in a trad. IRA certainly simplifies the how's and why's re. maximizing the positive effects of any big trim (presumably, after a nice gain?). If you're settled on having another TRP fund, and "but what?" is the primary question, I'd suggest a look at this:
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=PRSIX
1. If you look at the top 25 stock holdings of all the Personal Strategy fund in the TRP series, you'll note that many of them are shared with PRWCX, the fund you are leaving. Consequently, you would be maintaining a presence in many of the same type of companies, just reducing your exposure;
2. As part of the move to reduce your high exposure in a single fund to ... umm, a more prudent level (how could you let that happen? 5 lashes with a wet noodle!), this also would be a good time to incorporate a reset of some of your shares in other funds that have gone underwater, e.g. PRSNX (I only know this because we initiated circa the same time in that one).
3. Given its different nature, it also wouldn't be criminal to slip a bit of the PRWCX harvest into MAPOX, a finer balanced fund than you'll find at TRP.
Just off the top of my head musing, FWIW.

37% in PRWCX would NOT be worrisome for me. There's only a handful of funds I'd say that about, OAKBX being another. However - if in your mind 37% is too much, than it probably is (because we don't want you bailing when it hits a rough patch).
Were I looking to diversify for long term growth only among Price's funds (as you prefer to do), PRWCX would be my first choice and RPGAX my second. RPGAX has a short track record and the 1% ER is a bit higher than I might like (owing to its 10% stake in a Blackstone hedge fund). But I own and like it as a good substitute for a moderate allocation fund. Also adds some global exposure which PRWCX lacks.

Yes, I appreciate that. I do have MAPOX at 13%. PREMX at 15%. PRSNX at 12%. And PRWCX at 37.30% --- which is why I'm looking to reduce it relative to my other positions.

maybe it's just me, but I would never hold > 10% of my portfolio in just one fund.

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