Summary prospectus. A $20.00 FEE if acct. is less than $10,000.00. What about retirement shares? Are those the "Advisor Class?"
https://prospectus-express.newriver.com/summary.asp?doctype=spro&clientid=trowepll&fundid=872803101
From the full prospectus: R Class
"The R Class is designed to be sold through financial intermediaries for employer-sponsored defined contribution retirement plans and certain other accounts. The R Class must be purchased through an eligible financial intermediary (except for certain retirement plans held directly with T. Rowe Price)."
Could you be any more VAGUE? Does my Rollover IRA count for anything, here?
.....Otherwise, I might be interested in this fund, just to simplify, and put more of my stuff under the TRP roof.

I appreciate the responses. Some years ago, I did grab a good profit from PRLAX. So, I was just wondering. I'm down to 8% foreign equities. SFGIX is my only foreign and EM equity fund at the moment, apart from Real Estate. My bonds have been behaving as ballast when I DON'T want them to do that. Double-edged sword. 39% of portf. is in bonds of all sorts, and bonds are lately dragging on my most solid portf. anchors: PRWCX and MAPOX. Some funds will pay monthly dividend overnight: end of the month. Outside retirement tax-advantaged portf, I've been d-c-a-ing into electric utility, PNM. It got hammered today. My teeny-tiny slice in COP shot upward today. Almost back to even-Stephen. I might just hold is for longer, now, with the OPEC and Russia agreement today. Connecticut wrappers? That stuff grows just a few miles south. I'm just inside the Mass. border. :) There's a big difference between the two, too: in Connecticut, there's actual PAVEMENT. ;)

"Their introduction of F-class shares came about 10 years ago when they realized they were being shut out of many fee-only accounts established by RIAs."
Most load funds enable brokers to sell their funds without loads so long as the brokers collect fees in some other way. Often, funds will simply waive their loads for fee-based (aka "wrap") accounts. This has been going on since the last century, not just the past decade.
American Funds did this until 2002. Read an older prospectus. It says "Investments made by investors in certain qualified fee-based programs ... may also be made with no sales charge and are not subject to a CDSC".
Read a current prospectus: "You may generally open an account and purchase Class F
shares only through fee-based programs of investment dealers .... These intermediaries typically charge ongoing fees for services they provide. Intermediary fees are not paid by the fund and normally range from .75% to 1.50% of assets annually, depending on the services offered."
Pre-2002, post-2002, same intermediaries, same charges by American Funds. Only the letter attached to the shares changed - from A to F.
So it doesn't look introducing F shares changed anything substantial.
I do agree that, to use a word now in vogue, the "optics" changed. American Funds seems to like the unix philosophy of KISS as much as unix zealots. By that I mean they take it to the extreme. (See, e.g. Rob Pike's "Cat -v Considered Harmful", advocating simple separate programs rather than multiple options on a given program.)
American Funds seems to have taken this approach to heart - instead of having class A shares with different load options (beyond breakpoint pricing), it separated out a no load option into a new share class. Instead of having different options for different uses (retirement plans, 529 plans, retail purchases), it has different groups of shares (R shares, 529 shares, letter shares).
Timing suggests that the introduction of the F shares was a response to the Merrill Lynch Rule (1999-2007) facilitating wrap accounts without holding their reps to a fiduciary standard, but that's purely circumstantial and I can't show a direct link.

I don't think this article helps too much, but here's a 2013 article describing Capital Group's reorganization into multiple groups:
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/capital-group-will-restructure-based-on-investment-objectives-13699.html
Ignoring for the moment that little of the verbiage in the article or prospectus is particularly clear, what I would have guessed is: many mutual fund companies have multiple equity teams where each team manages multiple funds. Those teams tend to be theme based, e.g. large cap, small cap, international, etc. While the names of Capital's equity groups don't suggest that, it is at least consistent with the FA article, that talks about organizing these groups around particular investing objectives.
Regarding AF having "now" introduced no-load shares. They've had no-load shares for many years. What changed is that you're now finding a way to purchase them. But no-load R4 and R5 shares for retirement plans have been around for what seems like forever, with R6 and R5E being added more recently. The F share class (renamed F-1 in 2008) has been around for a couple of decades.
You can get F-2, and sometimes even cheaper R5 or R6 shares through HSA accounts. For example, the HSA Authority offers RERFX.

Here's the actual GAO report.
While some of what it says may be sound and even useful, there are enough things that pop out to suggest one not read a news report without looking at the GAO report itself.
The report starts: "GAO’s nongeneralizable survey ..." Much later it amplifies: "The participants’ responses and our analysis of their accuracy are not generalizable.."
"Our web-based survey was an opt-in panel [self-selecting participants] and open to anyone who received a link to the survey ... [including] plan sponsors and other plan professionals who assist plan sponsors ... On the basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and follow-up procedures, we determined that the data were of sufficient quality for our purposes."
While the report says that people average 11 jobs over the thirty year period between ages 18 and 48, it notes that these jobs may be held simultaneously. Also, half of these (5+) are held before age 25 (Table 4). Where and how is that accounted for when looking at the savings lost by starting jobs that require a one year waiting period before contributing to a 401(k)?
On the one hand, the waiting period for all these early jobs may be more costly than the same waiting period at the later jobs. That's because the early job money that would have been contributed but for the waiting period would have grown for more years than later job contributions. On the other hand, early career wages are lower, so fewer 401(k) dollars may be lost by having to wait. Perhaps even no retirement dollars at all are lost. This is because at starting wage income levels, people might be able to put all these dollars into IRAs without maxing out.
It doesn't seem that the report is this sophisticated. It seems to use hypotheticals that it considers average, but I've taken just such a quick cursory look that all I've got are questions.
The report may hang together. The GAO did use some actual labor statistics. But it seems hard to tell from a very quick first glance. As an employee, I want to get everything I can from my employer - immediate participation, immediate vesting, large match. As an employer, I want to be able to retain employees, especially in the more mobile 21st century. The best way to do that is still to provide a work environment where people want to stay.

FYI: Many company 401(k) retirement savings plans could use a swift kick into the 21st century, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161122/free/161129973?template=printart

Would that 2.5% be enough for the rest ?
Derf

No disability ends at full retirement age and the regular SS fund picks up the rest. Also, presently the SS fund is quite healthy but the disability fund is not so it is spending from the SS fund. (At least it was. I am assuming that it still is.)

Boy, if given the chance over 40 years ago to go with SS or use that money to fund my own retirement, I would have picked the latter in a heartbeat. Yea some don't know how to save or invest but don't include those who want to do better, which is a big chunk of society.
I have always liked the idea that out of the 12.5% tax for SS, let me invest 10%. The rest goes into a pool fund for those who are physically disabled or unable to work. We do have a compassionate streak among us.

@Ted. Thank you for the link.
My biggest take away from some of the words related to some of the pension funds is that; let us (pension fund managers) blame the sad state of affairs of gains since the market melt 9 years ago on low yields. The pension funds are going to run out of money and/or be forced to reduce future benefits or BOTH. Hell yes, they are and will. Guess that underfunding doesn't help much either, eh?
From the article:
Government-bond yields have risen since Donald Trump was elected U.S. president, though few investors expect a prolonged climb. Regardless, the ultralow bond yields of recent years have already hindered the most straightforward way for retirement funds to recover—through investment gains.
>>> So, no investment gains from price appreciation that many bond types have had over the past nine years??? Ya, right! If these managers have not made money from bonds in past years, they need to find new work. Losses in other investment areas have likely offset bond price gains.
From the article:
Pension officials and government leaders are left with vexing choices. As investors, they have to stash away more than they did before or pile into riskier bets in hedge funds, private equity or commodities. Countries, states and cities must decide whether to reduce benefits for existing workers, cut back public services or raise taxes to pay for the bulging obligations.
>>>Prior discussions and links here at MFO have indicated performance problems with many large pension funds. Perhaps that should have invested in something like VWINX and/or a simple 50/50 equity/bond mix with 4 holdings.
Educated, smart folks; who are not the sharpest tools in the investment world shed! Perhaps hire a few more hedge fund managers.......oh, wait; these managers are being fired by numerous funds!
10 year annualized returns sampler on the simple side of investment life:
--- IEF = 5.5%
--- TLT = 6.7%
--- LQD = 5.5%
--- TIP = 4.1% (even the lowly regarded TIP is far above this percentage using simple moving averages for buys and sells)
--- VTI = 7.1%
--- SPY = 6.8%
--- IWM = 6.7%
--- QQQ = 11.4%
--- VWINX = 6.7%
Pick any 4 of the above and one still finds an average of about 6.2% annualized over 10 years. Yes, I know; not much diworsifiers in the above choices. Build your own pension fund and post here, eh?
Problems with the future of many pension funds and survival are real. Problems with this also result from the skill set of much of the management(s).
Other than these, all is well with the world.
...etf ticker highlight test IEF QQQ
Take care,
Catch

Here is the response I received from T. Rowe Price after inquiring where the quarterly fund commentary sections went on their website:
"I regret to inform you that that the commentary that was once found when clicking on the formerly labeled "Management/Commentary" tab has been removed for each fund. After careful consideration and research, we found that the tab did not receive enough visits to warrant keeping the commentary when combined with the knowledge that the commentary was never timely or 100% up-to-date despite our best efforts. We are working on developing a more robust experience for our shareholders to utilize in the future.
In the interim, we believe our T. Rowe Price Insights page will provide you with some of the information you may be looking for when it comes to investments, the markets & economy, and retirement & financial planning. These various pages are updated regularly with commentary and articles from specific investment professionals."
Very disappointing - I like to read a fund manager's commentary on how the fund performed, positioning, outlook, etc. each quarter.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/898745/000089874516001580/pfi831saisupp110216.htm
497 1 pfi831saisupp110216.htm PFI 831 SAI SUPP 110216
Principal Funds, Inc.
Supplement dated November 2, 2016
to the Statement of Additional Information dated December 31, 2015
as amended and restated March 29, 2016
(as supplemented on May 2, 2016, May 31, 2016, June 17, 2016,
July 29, 2016, September 16, 2016, and October 28, 2016)
This supplement updates information currently in the Statement of Additional Information. Please retain this supplement for future reference.
PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION OF SHARES
Under Purchase of Shares, add the following:
Small-MidCap Dividend Income Fund
For retail investors (i.e., non-employer sponsored retirement plan investors), effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on December 1, 2016, and for employer-sponsored retirement plan investors, effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on January 6, 2017, the Small-MidCap Dividend Income Fund (the “Fund”) will no longer be available for purchases from new investors except in limited circumstances.
• Shareholders, including those in omnibus accounts, who own shares of the Fund as of December 1, 2016 (for retail investors, i.e., non-employer sponsored retirement plan investors) or January 6, 2017, (for employer sponsored retirement plan investors), may continue to make purchases, exchanges, and dividend or capital gains reinvestment in existing accounts.
• Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) and bank trust firms that have an investment allocation to the Small-MidCap Dividend Income Strategy (i.e. investments in the same strategy used in collective investment trust, insurance separate accounts, or separately managed accounts) in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account, may add new clients, or purchase shares in the Fund. The Fund will not be available to new RIA and bank trust firms.
•Shareholders through accounts at private banks may continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund. Private Banks that have an investment allocation to the Small-MidCap Dividend Income Strategy may add new clients to the Fund. The Fund will not be available to private bank or private bank platforms not already investing in the Small-MidCap Dividend Income Strategy.
• Shareholders in broker/dealer wrap or fee-based programs that have an investment allocation to the Fund may continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund. Existing broker/dealer wrap or fee-based programs may add new participants.
• Shareholders in certain types of retirement plans (including 401(k)s, SEPs, SIMPLEs, 403(b)s, etc.) may continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund. New participants in these plans may elect to purchase shares of the Fund.
• Retirement plans in transition as of the closure date will have until January 6, 2017, to fund any new accounts in the Fund.
• Investors who open a new IRA transfer or rollover account by the close of business on December 1, 2016, will have until January 6, 2017, to fund these accounts.
•Shareholders within brokerage accounts may continue to purchase shares of the Fund; however, new brokerage accounts will not be permitted to begin investing in the Fund after December 1, 2016.
• 529 plans that include the Fund within their investment options may continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund.
•Investors who have a direct investment in the Small-MidCap Dividend Income Strategy may, subject to the approval of the Distributor, purchase shares in the Fund.
At the sole discretion of the Distributor, the Fund may permit certain types of investors to open new accounts, impose further restrictions on purchases, or reject any purchase orders, all without prior notice.

FYI: Bank of America Merrill Lynch told its financial advisers Tuesday to halt the sale of mutual funds in brokerage-based individual retirement accounts, months before the Labor Department's new fiduciary regulation takes effect.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161101/FREE/161109984?template=printart

DM,
Thanks for the note. The advisor's fees start at 1.00%-0.5% per year so that is a bit more expensive than VG. VG and some of the ROBOs charge 0.25% or less so his prices would give me pause. I am not sure if she would qualify for the lower rate based on asset size. I think she and I both talked about "sleep at night" levels. I think given time horizon, health, covered costs that 37% is just fine. I think Pfalu and Kitces (among others, forgive spelling errors please) have made arguments for rising equity values in retirement but I don't know if that would allow us to sleep at night. Regards.
Mike

No one can give you 'the answer'. Here are some things to think about in developing your own answer:
1. At 76, presumably you are not trying to 'grow' your assets, and with your fixed costs covered, you re-invest the income, and presumably wish to conserve your assets. If that is the case, and you have 'won the game' -- meaning you have sufficient assets for your needs. Well, why keep playing the game, after the game is already won? If that assumption on my part is wrong, and you prefer to stay in the game, for whatever reason, then the answer is probably 'stay the course' -- so long as you will be copasetic with the results Mr. Market delivers.
2. If by 'bond bubble', you are implying the likelihood of a'popping' of the bubble, why stick around, at least in full-allocation mode? An investor can earn ~ 1% yield on near-cash or cash assets (e.g. "MINT", internet savings accts, etc.) Market-cap bond index products pay what now, something with a 2-handle in terms of yield? If the answer is you want the marginally higher income, that is a true answer. But consciously accept, stability of income may be at odds with stability of principal, especially when asset values are rich. You have to understand what is of primary importance to you, the income, or the value of your principal, then decide what to do.
3. If your 'bond bubble' diagnosis becomes reality and the bond market drops, expect stocks to fall in sympathy with bonds. Both asset classes benefitted from Q/E & ZIRP; IMO it would self-serving and delusional to expect that stocks will soar while/if bond prices drop. Often, stocks are more frenetic in their price moves than bonds. So reallocating principal from bonds to equities, probably won't DE-risk a portfolio. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.
4. Lastly, and I am sure you know this, a decision to buy, hold, or sell is never a 'final decision'. Circumstances may change tomorrow, and you can reverse your decision.
I'm about 25 years your junior. Still in accumulation mode, but expecting to retire early in 4 years. Except for the whole health-insurance issue, I could retire now, spend principal, and not have another worry. So, I've no intention of exposing all of my assets to the vississitudes of Mr. Market here --- which might risk delaying my retirement. Especially with most asset classes trading 'rich'. But that is me. You are in a different place. Your fixed costs are covered. The question is to what degree to you wish to expose your assets to Mr. Market -- and for what purpose? Does the marginal income/return you derive from holding rich assets adequately compensate for the risk of holding richly-priced assets? Ultimately, only you can answer that question. Nobody else can.

FYI: The allure of tax-free growth has made the Roth individual retirement account an increasingly popular investment vehicle to leave to children or other loved ones. But heirs won’t reap the full benefit of a Roth if it isn’t passed down correctly.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/be-careful-when-passing-down-a-roth-ira-1477275060

But remember that most public employees also have a pretty generous pension plan that is far better than Social Security. Why else would the politicians not be a part of SS? Our experience has been that public employees who also have contributed to 403b (yes, most have hideous fee structures) plans are often in financially strong shape at retirement. Most mutual fund companies opted out of 403b plans years ago, so that left only those funds run by insurance companies as options for many plan participants. Interesting that a number of quality fund companies (T.R. Price, for example) remained in the 457 business, which is a plus for those folks who qualify.

Thanks for pointing that out msf - and all the additional information.
Here's the part near the end of the NYT article I may have overlooked (along with several links embedded in the article).
"The 64 million workers with 401(k) accounts are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, overseen by the Labor Department. The law outlines minimum guidelines and protections for workers and requires employers or plan overseers to act in the best interests of participants....But most assets in 403(b) accounts are invested in the murkier side of the market, which is not covered by the federal law, known as Erisa. Many hospitals and private colleges tend to hew more closely to Erisa standards, but a series of recent lawsuits against prominent universities argue there is still room for improvement."
A highly emotionally charged piece of writing - similar to how 60 Minutes manages to hype emotionally charged anecedotes while at the same time constructing the overall fact-based presentation. Not a knock on the style. Just a recognition of how the story is being presented.

The history is generally accurate, except for minor details. 403(b)s began in 1958, as noted in the accompanying NYTimes article (link is at end of article, or here).
It's true that Section 401(k) of the IRC wasn't enacted until 1978 (and didn't become effective until 1980), but 401(k)s are just "Cash Or Deferred Arrangement" (CODA) plans. According to ICI, these go back to the 1950s (with IRS rulings in 1956 to regulate them). The profit sharing (employer contribution) portion of these plans goes all the way back to the beginning of the modern income tax (1913), i.e. not counting the income tax that Lincoln instituted.
Similarly, there were annuity plans for educators predating Section 403(b) of the IRC, going all the way back to the founding of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) in 1918.
The NYTimes article cited above confirms that mutual funds were added to 403(b)s in 1974. But that's for "real" 1940 Act mutual funds. Remembering that 403(b)s were created as annuities, we can also consider variable annuities (i.e. similar to mutual funds, but contained inside annuity wrappers). The first variable annuity was the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF), created in 1952.
IMHO, if one wants to talk about the full history, one goes all the way back to the 1910s. If one wants to talk about the modern regulatory era, one starts in 1974 with ERISA.

FYI: Schoolteachers and others who pursue careers of service in exchange for modest
paychecks get lightly regulated retirement plans that often charge excessive fees.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0

Curious listing of share classes. What caught my eye was #4, AEPGX. Class A.
According to its SAI, the largest share class is R-6, RERGX, with $41B, vs. $26 for AEPGX. As this is an R-class, we know that virtually all of this money is in retirement plans.
The R-6 class is the largest, the cheapest, the most used in employer-sponsored retirement accounts. So why list a smaller, more expensive share class? It may be older, but the title of the article is most popular.
I agree that there's not much here.