It's not just the 100y bonds; Pimco has quite a bit of P'bras of various issues across the board in their credit FI funds and cef's. And they've also got Gazprom almost everywhere you look ... just don't get it.

To hank's concern - since mutual funds trade on a daily basis, one can't beat fees by trading a few minutes or a couple of hours earlier in the day. The fees would be imposed on all trades for that day, because all trades execute at close of market.
To scott's concern - each situation is different. People long believed that the Chinese government was inflating its market. The market had been up 150% in the trailing twelve months before coming back to earth. Even now, the Shanghai is barely down YTD (-2.3%), and up 36% over the past twelve months. People "panicked" on the upside as well.
So that drop in prices seems to have been at least somewhat justified by fundamentals - something the Chinese government finally failed to paper over. The Chinese government exacerbates the situation with ham handed attempts to prop up stock prices.
In contrast, the 1933 bank holiday did not increase panic, but ameliorated it. It gave the public time to cool down, and time for the US government to take actions that, in contrast to the Chinese actions, served to build confidence. Each situation is different.
More generally, this is not a proposal to shut down daily buying/selling of mutual funds, but to give funds the option of imposing redemption fees when trading costs spike. The redemption fees are not going into the management company's pockets. These are not management fees. They are not going into the pockets of salespeople. They are not commissions. No one is getting ripped off; people are paying for the costs they are imposing on the other investors (in excess of redemption costs in quiescent times).
I agree with the observation that the proposal as described creates uncertainty in whether the redemption fees will be applied on a particular day. Which is why I suggested greater transparency - base the decision to apply the fees on visible market data rather than opaque fund cash flows. Greater transparency = less panic.

Scott said: "Seriously, who's buying 100 year bonds of anything these days, especially a company that has been an incredible mess for a while now."
Yep - Sounds insane. ... I suspect perhaps insurance companies and some pension funds might find 100-year bonds of use in managing their long-term obligations and risks.
Also, possibly a hedging tool for some bond fund managers in extremely limited amounts (I'm thinking of something like 1% of total portfolio.)
To me, the 100-year bond sounds more like a derivative instrument than a real bond. Its risk/rewards are highly dependent on a whole host of unknowns.

"Guys, we have a new 100-year issuance from Petrobras."
"Isn't that company in trouble as part of the country's larger political scandal?"
"Yeah, but they're issuing a ONE HUNDRED YEAR bond! That MUST mean they're okay!"
"Oooh, okay, lets buy a s-ton!"
Cut to a few months later....
"Hey, why did Brazil just get downgraded to junk? Gee, is that bad for the 100-year Petrobras bonds we bought?"
Seriously, who's buying 100 year bonds of anything these days, especially a company that has been an incredible mess for a while now.

FYI: When Petroleo Brasileiro SA sold 100-year bonds in June, the move was largely seen as a sign the corruption-tainted oil producer had put the worst of its problems behind it.
For investors like Pacific Investment Management Co., Fidelity Management & Research Co. and Capital Group Inc. -- the three biggest holders of the securities -- that turned out to be a costly miscalculation. Since the $2.5 billion offering, the bonds have tumbled 15 percent. That’s four times the average loss for emerging-market company debt.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-14/pimco-fidelity-stung-by-collapse-of-petrobras-s-100-year-bond?cmpid=yhoo

The article implies that funds currently can only impose redemption fees for limited holding periods: "Unlike redemption fees, which are imposed on investors who trade frequently ..."
That's not exactly the case. Vanguard used to impose redemption and purchase fees on VEIEX for all transactions, regardless of how long you held your shares. Vanguard clearly said that it did this because: "Funds incur trading costs when they invest new cash or sell securities to meet redemption requests; these costs run higher for funds that invest in small-company or international stocks. "
2003 Vanguard Prospectus:
Sounds like what Blackrock says (in the article) it is currently doing with swing prices in Europe: "shifting trading costs to exiting investors". Seems fair - you pay for what you use. It's not saying that small trades are influencing the trading costs per share; it's saying that everyone should pay whatever their trades cost at the time - more when the costs are high, and less when the costs are low. No special treatment for investors, large or small.
There are already other rules ("circuit breakers") in place to tamp down volatility. Those rules affect everyone, not just the institutional traders. So from the perspective of managing runs on the market, the proposed rule doesn't seem to be that radical.
What is novel is the idea that the fee could be dependent not on the market volatility, but on the net cash flow of the individual fund. If there were tons of redemptions but also tons of matching purchases, it sounds like the fund would not impose redemption fees.
IMHO that should be eliminated. This would cause even more confusion than the article suggests. And it wouldn't achieve an intended effect of reducing volatility, since people wouldn't know for sure that trades on a given day would cost them more.
Instead, the fees could be triggered simply on market volatility - something people can see when they put in their orders. If the fund makes a profit (because cash flows balanced at the end of the day and it incurred lower net trading costs), then the excess fees would flow back into the fund, just as redemption fees do under current regulations.

Makes no sense. Can't make up stuff. Some mutual funds have long lock in periods like 1 year I believe for MXXVX. Fund company welcome to do that by clearly mentioning in prospectus.
Earthquake in San Francisco...I cannot sell my mutual fund without redemption? Who are we helping here? All such rules will do is prevent mom and pop from selling their funds while high net worth investors will cash out. Even if those pay the redemption fees, they will not feel it much and it is THEY who move the markets, not mom and pop investors.
SEC always seemed like a "captured" organization, but now I think they have too much time on their hands.

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.