@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".

Through successive ownerships, the Acorn Funds have been allowed to operate w/o interference, and to pursue their own path. Robert A. Mohn's retirement at end of 2015 as chief domestic investment adviser for the firm, following Charles McQaid's reducing his role in day-to-day management, may have been the death knell for the funds. The PMs of ACRNX went through some difficult analysis to try to improve the fund's performance, and there was an uptick after that. CEFZX emerging markets was a bright star, then tanked this year.
Most of the owners did seem to be legacy owners; nobody under 60 attended the shareholders' meetings, but the open question period elicited info I would not have thought to pursue, such as the funds' not timing cash, and ACRNX hoping some of its holdings would be takeover targets.
The PMs' frustration with performance was obvious.
It was a great opportunity for me to go to a local event and learn something.

This table is interesting. Using the 1928 to 2014 time period includes the negative impacts resulting from the 1929 crash and the crashes in the 30's. So, it hopefully provides a fairly good "worst case" scenario. The results support the view that including at least some stocks in an investment mix is important for most buy and hold investors even during retirement. I was surprised to see the size of the worst case losses for bonds over all holding periods as well as the frequency of losses over all those periods. That's a warning when looking forward 20 years from today! The resilience of the balanced portfolio was also impressive. It would be interesting to see how using a bond portfolio that included corporate bonds might impact the results.

Hi msf,
It is quite possible that we interpreted the Rethinking Retirement document differently or even that we went to a different reference from among those posted by ibartman.
I pulled the 3% number from the “whitepaper” link in ibartman’s original post. That click accessed the 14 page Rethinking Retirement report
On page10 of that document, the authors said: “These initial spending rates are specifically calibrated to include a 3% annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), rather than having spending adjust precisely with the realized inflation experienced over retirement.”
In doing any forecasting analyses, I always postulate a positive risk return premium for both stocks and bonds over inflation. Reasonable approximations are 6.5% and 1.5%, respectively. But these are easily adjusted when doing Monte Carlo simulations to suit your preferences.
The primary purpose of my post was to reintroduce Monte Carlo simulators to the MFO population. Any input numbers that I suggest or that Pfau and Dokken actually used are nice as a generic guideline or a departure point, but do not necessarily reflect the specifics that each investor needs for his personal portfolio. That’s why I consistently recommend that each investor become familiar and comfortable enough with the Monte Carlo tool to do his own analyses.
That comfort level comes with practice. With sufficient practice comes confidence in the assembled portfolio and whatever withdrawal rate is being planned. Since plans are never perfectly realized, revisions will be needed as a function of time, so the Monte Carlo tool needs to be revisited.
The specific quoted numbers are not important; the tool and the process are the essential ingredients to exploring the robustness of any portfolio, and an acceptable withdrawal rate that might need adjustments over time.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
The recent paper by Professors Pfau & Dokken on the erosion of the 4% retirement drawdown rule allows me to get out my old broken record that extols the virtues of Monte Carlo analysis.
I have done this so any times that MFO members must be tired of my pontifications on the subject. No matter, this is an important topic that should encourage those not mathematically inclined to use the Monte Carlo tool. Mathematical sophisticated is not required.
What is required is the persistence and the thought process to define some plausible what-if scenarios for the long term marketplace. You guys do this all the time when committing money to various financial products. The Monte Carlo tool will do the needed calculations. It is not necessary to look under the hood to comprehend the machinery. That only depends on your interest level.
For the purposes of exploring the various dimensions of this retirement withdrawal issue, I recommend the Monte Carlo code accessible on the Portfolio Visualizer website. Here is a direct Link to their version of a Monte Carlo simulator:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
I encourage you to visit this tool and play games with it. With just a little effort you can easily examine numerous scenarios that will permit you to develop a feel for which parameters are important and which are not. Have some fun.
The conclusions that Pfau & Dokken reached were basically preordained by the conservative assumptions that they made. The old 4% drawdown rule was doomed by their pessimistic assumptions. I actually agree with some of them, but not all. You must decide for yourself both the merits and shortcomings of them.
Understand that Pfau & Dokken postulated a 30 to 40 year portfolio survival requirement. They presumed a 95% portfolio survival criteria. You get to choose these based on your own situation. They assumed that the equity market is too high based on the current Shiller’s P/E10 ratio, and simultaneously projected an equity regression-to-the-mean.
Pfau & Dokken also assumed that long-term bond returns would be perturbed modestly from its present low rate of return. But they also hypothesized that annual inflation rates would average 3%. That’s lower than the historical average, but is not consistent with the postulated depressed long-term bond annual rate of return.
Since most retirement analyses make adjustments for the inflation rate, this is a critical paired set of inputs. I recommend you play what-if games with these parameters, especially the inflation rate. The Portfolio Visualizer tool allows this parameter to be easily changed. Just do it.
Pfau & Dokken are smart, experienced researchers. But recognize that their findings were predetermined by a set of conservative assumptions. It’s likely that you agree with some but take issue with others. The Portfolio Visualizer tool will allow you to measure the impact of this plethora of assumptions.
In the Simulation Model box of the code, I recommend you click to the “Parameterized Returns” which will permit you to input your estimate of annual “expected return” and “volatility” (standard deviation) for your portfolio. You can change these to explore how survival outcomes change. Also try different Inflation estimates to test their impact on portfolio survival rates. Enjoy.
I hope you find my post useful, but more importantly, I hope you visit and try the referenced Monte Carlo code.
Best Regards.

As for the 4% or whatever withdrawal rate, doesn't the size of one's nest egg count for something? Meaning, a debt free couple with a $3,000,000 nest egg who lives half way frugally could just live off their principal and not worry about the whims of the stock and bond markets. I realize I live in a low cost/income area of the U.S but in my region a single debt free retiree gets by just fine on $36,000 annually and a couple $42,000.

I think one purpose of such articles is to instill fear. " Retirement planning is hard you need us."

WHY 4% COULD FAIL
Sep 1, 2015 • Wade Pfau & Wade Dokken

The 4% rule isn't worth much. I posted this in another thread on how to estimate for retirement.
-------------------------------------------------------
Too many assumptions to go into there. Monte Carlo and others are like many rule of thumb (e.g. 4% rule) estimators - good for generalities but not good for the specific situations.
Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc.
This is my 2015 budget own home, no debt, single person
Basic Living
House
2,117 RE Tax
2,556 HOA
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,522 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
82 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,929 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
59 Misc
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,029 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
11,211 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,661 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living - 1
91 Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
Good Sam
583
Incremental Living - 2
6,256 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,256
6,839 Total Discretionary
28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
Let's assume I don't have any pension or SS, and no inflation for now. What do I need?
$114,000 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$407,143 earning 7% to get to 28,500/year expenses
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$621,143 to 671,143 total excluding house
Does a person need all that money? Maybe not if the person will collect SS. The closer they are to collecting SS would affect that - e.g. if they are within 2 years they could have less money in near cash.
This is not meant to be a perfect example.
Now let's use Junkster's info on SS $1294 monthly - 15,528/yr
$28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
-$15,528 SS
$12,972 to be funded
$51,888 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$185,143 earning 7% to get to 12,972/year expenses to be funded
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$337,031 to 357,031 total excluding house
Both of these examples are better than monte carlo and top down rule of thumb.
There are two reasons I can think of that the top down method is the most discussed:
1. Advisors use them to scare people into buying their services
2. Budgeting is boring and most don't people don't have one nor do most know where they spend their money.

WHY 4% COULD FAIL
Sep 1, 2015 • Wade Pfau & Wade Dokken
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/why-4--could-fail-22881.html
Our research shows that Americans retiring in 2015 need to be far more conservative in their withdrawal rates during retirement. The historic 4% annual withdrawal rate is over two times the level that Americans can safely withdraw without expecting to outlive their assets. The real safe withdrawal rate, accounting for fees and today’s stock and bond market levels, is under 2% per year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above is a link to a very interesting article that explores impediments to current implementation of a 4% (+ subsequent inflation adjustments) retirement withdrawal rate.
However, the version of the article in the Financial Advisor Magazine ("FA Mag") Sep 2015 issue is a little confusing for a couple of reasons.

First, the article as rendered (either in print or online) suffers from typos or mis-referenced figures that make it more difficult to follow than it should be.
Second, some key assumptions do not appear in the article but can only be found in the appendix of the related whitepaper. These relate to the mutual fund costs and financial advisor fees.
Specifically, a financial advisor fee of 100 bps, and average mutual fund expense ratios of 67 bps for stocks and 60 bps for bonds.

Below is the whitepaper link which appears at the beginning of the FA Mag article. NOTE: It asks for name and contact information. Whitepaper contains assumptions in an Appendix and the whitepaper's figures are properly referenced and completely labelled. I suggest you read the Appendix first.
WHITEPAPER
http://www.fa-mag.com/rethinking-retirement-wealthvest-0815
And here - from Professor Pfau's website/blog is page with references and links to earlier papers on related topics :

WADE PFAU RETIREMENT RESEARCHER READING ROOM & BLOG
http://retirementresearcher.com/reading/
http://retirementresearcher.com/blog/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE
Wade Pfau is Professor of Retirement Income at the American College for Financial Services in Bryn Mawr, PA.
Wade Dokken is Co Founder & Co President of WealthVest Marketing, a firm that designs, markets, and distributes fixed and fixed index annuities.

District: VWINX is slated to be a long-term holding for me -- targeted to be 20% of my portfolio as I near/go into retirement. So I am biased. With that caveat, here is a thought...
Our current bull-market is long in the tooth. There is a high likelihood the stock market will encounter a "bear" within the next 3 years (for all we know, we may already be in one). If this sounds reasonable, I would suggest that purchasing the lower-beta of the 2 funds (VWINX) would make sense. If (when) the bear commences in earnest, and the stock market is significantly off its highs, you could then swap VWINX for VTMFX -- you may be "lucky enough" to realize a modest loss for tax-purposes at that time. -- And taking a position in the higher-beta fund only after investor sentiment (and prices) are less exuberant. ---
The "worst" that could happen if you did the above, is that we would experience no bear market for a prolonged period. -- In which case, you would still be holding a superb fund (VWINX)....

This is a rather tiresome old-fashioned view on SRI and ESG--environmental social and governance--based investing that has been refuted by academic evidence. Click here: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
A key excerpt from this report is the following:
"100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly....
89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here again, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years)."
In fact, I think the idea that "personal beliefs don't belong in your retirement account" actually is a reflection of the personal beliefs of many of the authors who routinely bash SRI/ESG without looking at the academic evidence, revealing their own biases. The fact is trillions of dollars are now invested globally according to some sort of SRI/ESG principles with little negative effects and in many cases positive ones:
fa-mag.com/news/sri-assets-up-76--since-2012--study-says-19953.html

"With the market turmoil, I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%."
"was able to avoid some of the carnage"
"your advice on a strategy for gradually increasing my stock holdings back to their target allocation"
"Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on my asset allocation."
---
Ten weeks ago U.S. equity markets were sitting at or near record highs, so if you bailed than it was a precient call. After a 6-year bull market in equities (dating back to March '09) you chose the exact moment to reduce your risk exposure.
If you bailed more recently due to the increasing chaos (mainly over the past 2 weeks) than that's a very short time-frame in which to be considering reallocating back into equities. As others have said, it's impossible to make these kind of week-to-week calls with precision. If using open-end mutual funds, you'd probably run into trouble with frequent trading restrictions as well.
Ted was correct in suggesting that if you have decades until retirement it's best to take a deep breath and stay at your previously appropriate allocation. For me, up until about age 50, that was 100% in a good solid global equity fund.* In hindsight, I'm happy I didn't sell it and move to bonds or cash every time the markets swooned. I'd never have selected the "correct" time to re-invest and would have damaged my prospects for a comfortable retirement.
As you near retirement it does get a bit more complicated for two reasons: (1) your investment time horizon shortens significantly and (2) you likely lose the stabilizing benefits of dollar cost averaging that you enjoyed during your working years. Here, you'll find plenty of spirited debate about how best to allocate during those later years. But ... that's a different subject than what you seem to be inquiring about.
-
* Note: 100% invested in an equity fund is not quite the same as 100% invested in equities. Most of these funds do maintain a bit of exposure to cash, bonds or alternative investments.

@VintageFreak,
I have two retirement accounts with American Century. I talked to one of their retirement specialists on the phone and he set everything up. I got the paperwork and signed it. One account was a 403b rollover in their funds. The other was my defined benefit pension which I was able to take a lump sum. I opened a brokerage account for that one. That gives me more flexibility in choices. I would suspect the procedure is similar with most fund companies.
I have enjoyed a good relationship with AC over the years and with the amounts in these accounts I was given Priority Investor status which gives me me additional benefits like a personal rep I can call or email anytime for one.

FYI: (I couldn't agree more, just remember the four B's --Booze , Bombs, Buttts & Broads, many times can make you a lot of money.)
When investors utilize SRI and other emotionally charged strategies, they do more harm than good because those strategies lack the following attributes:
• Diversification: The "Golden Rule" of investing is to maintain diversification at all times. Confining stock selection to only those that meet emotional guidelines can leave a portfolio exposed to unnecessary risks.
• Higher Expected Returns: Due to several fund mandates to avoid sin stocks, these equities are often cheaper on a valuation basis than other stocks that get crowded by the large fund managers.
• Effectiveness: Owning a stock of a company has little to no effect on its revenue generation, earnings, dividend safety, and/or compensation for management. A stock is nothing more than a claim on a percentage of the equity for a company.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/personal-beliefs-dont-belong-in-your-retirement-account-2015-08-31/print

"Have an old 401k I have been wanting to rollover. Do you have a retirement account with them by any chance? What is your experience?"
@VintageFreak- No, sorry, just non-sheltered stuff with them. @JohnChisum might, though. I know that he has a number of their funds.

We've been using AC for over 20 years...

Have an old 401k I have been wanting to rollover. Do you have a retirement account with them by any chance? What is your experience?

@mcmarasco
"Does anyone know anything about the Voya versions (virtual clones) of PRWCX (ITRAX / ITRIX / ITCSX / ITCTX)? They are open according to M*, but can the average investor purchase them???"
According to test trades I just made, these clones are not available at WellsTrade, Fidelity, TDAmeritrade, Scottrade and Firstrade. I still think that the most attractive option is to get a friend or acquaintance of yours to gift you a share between taxable accounts at a given brokerage.
Kevin

This is a fund designed for tax advantaged accounts. One finds it in individual variable annuities, college 403(b) plans, etc. So the question is: how desperate are you to purchase a PRWCX clone?
You can purchase the ADV class (ITRAX, 1.24% ER) through a Voya Preferred Advantage VA. The annuity itself adds another 0.60% fee. IMHO, that's too high a total cost - the 0.60% annuity fee is about the same as Schwab's, but you're paying up for the fund (it's tacking on a 0.75% 12b-1 fee).
On the plus side, the annuity has no withdrawal fees, the min for the whole VA (all investments) is $5K, and the annual maintenance fee is waived with a relatively low $15K balance. Also, the contract is relatively straightfoward - 50 pages plus fund descriptions, which may sound like a lot, but most of this is required to describe a basic annuity; no bells or whistles.)
Another option is to invest in AZL T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation. A combined (print) page with all the M* info is here (scroll past the nonexistent analyst report for the rest of the info).
You can purchase this inside the Allianz Retirement Pro® VA. This is a low cost VA, rated one of the top 10 traditional VAs by Barron's a couple of years ago, along with Vanguard/Monumental Life), Fidelity, TIAA-CREF (see embedded graphic) - Top 50 Annuities, May 27, 2013.
The VA costs 0.30% (Base Account, not the Income Advantage Account, which is a more restrictive and costly GLWB rider). The Class 2 shares of the PRWCX clone have an ER of 1.05%, for a combined cost of 1.35%, 1/2% below the ING offering, but still not cheap.
This annuity requires a min of $75K (across all investments), and charges an annual maintenance fee unless the balance is above $100K.
I don't suggest investing in these clones, but since the question was raised about how the average investor purchases them, there you have it. It is possible that other retail annuities offer these clones, though I am doubtful, because these seem to be proprietary clones offered through proprietary VAs (e.g. Voya clone offered through Voya VA).

"Many well-crafted mutual funds are designed to help income investors meet their objectives, whether it be for retirement or to just have some extra cash on hand."
I've always found CS reporting rather shallow. No exception here. The two T. Rowe Price funds on their list, PRFDX & TRREX, lost 35% and 39% in 2008 respectively. Description might better read: "Buy these funds at the wrong time expecting to generate income and you might NOT have any extra cash on hand or retire as early as you'd like.

FYI: If you're an investor looking to boost income rather than long-term growth, you have a ton of great options. Many well-crafted mutual funds are designed to help income investors meet their objectives, whether it be for retirement or to just have some extra cash on hand.
Some of these funds are pure income plays designed for those in or near retirement, while others also offer some nice capital appreciation
Regards,
Ted
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2015/0825/Ten-solid-mutual-funds-for-income-investors

@little5bee, I apologize that I miss-typed. The $5K minimum investment is for retirement accounts, not non-retirement accounts as I stated earlier. The $100K requirement is common across many brokerages. Another approach is to buy direct from the mutual fund company if they have lower minimum. Some may but they requires monthly automatic investment.
At present I like to get into Seafare G&I, institutional share, but don't have $100K and there is no work-around this yet.