I've gratuitously managed the ports of a lot of friends and relatives over the past ~40 years. I do it because they need the help and I can provide it. My goal is usually, depending on their age and my relationship to them, to educate them on the basics and someday have them feel confident enough to do it themselves.
But I don't do it for everyone who asks me for help. I am very selective in choosing whose port I'll manage. And I vary the scope of my work based on a bunch of factors too varied to detail here.
It definitely ain't all thankless and never have I gotten myself into an arrangement that came back to bite me. And regularly the friends and relatives throw things my way despite my insistence that they don't need to give me anything.
We've received some pretty incredible "Thank Yous'' that have taken us to places and events that we may have never been. And we've eaten a lot of great food at restaurants that we'd have never otherwise seen the insides of! And the home cooked meals are many times to die for!
The most financially rewarding situation (despite me not being in it for that) came after a very wealthy relative was told by a national tax service that she owed a combined ~$60K in FIT/SIT in a year she sold her home. Well, one relative smelled something amiss, and word quickly got out in the family that I should take a look at that before the relative signs the return and has it filed by the firm.
Yeah, huge error by the firm in their calculation of adjusted basis of the property. Relative actually only owed ~$5K, not ~$60K, in combined FIT/SIT. I worked with the national firm who admitted their mistake and they correctly filed the respective returns based on my corrections. The relative was beyond elated and thought (despite my urging to the contrary) that I should get a healthy chunk of the savings of would be taxes. I tried to stop her but could only contain her gratitude! (I was asked if I would be upset if she sent me a check for $X. I responded that I don't upset easily!)
Far beyond all that though has been the incredible boost this part of my relationships has added to our overall relationships. It works that way because I establish a framework that I will only work within and there are clearly expressed ground rules. At the first notion of problems, the portfolio mgmt part of our relationship is terminated. In all the years of doing this, that only happened once. It was no big deal and there were no ill effects to our overall relationship.
The other incredible by product of doing this is what I learn about risk, specific investments and varying investment strategies that I would have otherwise not likely learned had I not engaged in these activities. Over the years I found three funds that I might not have otherwise found via reviews of 401k and 403b options. I invested in all three and two of them have been cornerstone funds of ours for a long time now.
Yeah, I agree. Doing this ain't for everybody and many that do will suffer consequences that they could have avoided by just staying out of these relationships. But I'd caution taking advice from posters on internet forums who have never once engaged in this, or maybe had a bad experience, or heard about a cousin of a friend's uncle who did.

My parents have an advisor who is about to retire. he said he'll take care of them for as long as he's alive (my father is clergy and helped him through some losses) so thats nice but he's 5 years older than my parents!
I know what they are invested in and nothing is too out of bounds. I'd do it differently in all likelihood but nonetheless I don't want the hassle.
My dad wants me involved in all the meetings which is fine. I assume advisors roll their eyes at the idea of a novice stickign their nose in.
That said, I know one of the guys at his firm and he knows I know my stuff and has tried to get me to turn to a life of financial advice (blech) so its fine.
He asked me one day if I had any ideas I'd like to discuss. I was like I know you agreed to handle this for my parents and I appreciate that, but would it be better to move these 8 funds into a singular balanced fund that spits out a distribution that they can w/d or not w/d for their expenses? It seems like it woudl be easier for everyone involved. He's like thats a great idea but I'm not dead yet lets look at that later on.
I manage my fathers stock account (largely vtsax and john deere) that we use for charitable giving.

PRWCX vs (TCAF+PRCFX)
If you can't own PRWCX, maybe consider owning a combination of TCAF/PRCFX.
Using a percentage of the eft TCAF in combination with a percentage of PRCFX one can approximate the same portfolio as PRWCX.
PRWCX allocation changes dynamically so this is an imprecise science.
Using PV, you can back test these three funds over the short lifespan of TCAF and PRCFX (1 Year). I found that a combination of approximately (1/3) TCAF and (2/3) PRCFX achieved a slightly better return that PRWCX with similar risk profiles. Maybe, in large part to a lower ER than PRWCX.
Here's the PV link:
https://portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3fHSaFUgvCF0hNyOy10GSc

As @fundly observed, one can purchase the ITRIX clone w/$100 min through Firstrade. While not an exact copy, it is a faithful clone that mimic's PRWCX's allocations between stock and bonds, and even within stocks.
My impression is that this dynamic allocation is part of Giroux's secret sauce. Duplication through static allocations dilutes this sauce. According to PV, the proposed admixtures result in 71% large cap stocks, while "the original' currently keeps only 63% of its equity in large caps.
One year is hardly enough time to get any sort of meaningful impression. Here's the same PV comparison extended back just one extra month, December 2023. Here, PRWCX is the one that achieves a slight better return.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7lfscKm5n0ACQ13fTdpipc
What a difference a month makes. 31 little days.

Just got off the phone with TRPRice.
@$250K AUM they offer access to their closed funds such as PRWCX
@$500K AUM they offer access to their institutional share class funds such as TRAIX
@BaluBalu is that your understanding?

I do not trust my memory for specifics. I only carry the general notion and I check every time I need to validate it or need specifics. What you say sounds right but I thought the eligibility requirements are stated on their website - see if you can find.

@Crash, you should be able to convert your PRWCX into TRAIX ( for the lower ER of 13 basis points). I think TRAIX is available on TRP platform only. Many do not like the TRP platform and do not want to move their PRWCX to TRP even if they meet the minimums. There are other reasons (you may choose to call mental frictions) for not consolidating. On a $1m size, a difference (loss?) of $1,300 annually. What is a rational behavior can change as circumstances change. If the 13 becomes 26, some of these people might switch. Anyway, a long winded answer to what I think was your primary question. You do you.

PRWCX can be converted to TRAIX on the Vanguard platform. I believe the minimum is $500,000.

Just got off the phone with TRPRice.
@$250K AUM they offer access to their closed funds such as PRWCX
@$500K AUM they offer access to their institutional share class funds such as TRAIX
@BaluBalu is that your understanding?

Sold DODIX and invested in ICMUX with the funds. In October ‘24 I had thought DODIX would be an appropriate place to re-enter intermediate bonds in 2025. After the last few years in bond fund land, my patience is short (as will my bond fund duration).

Shorter for longer. :)
Me too.

Institutional TRAIX (ER 0.59%) should be compared to Institutional ITRIX (ER 0.64%). M* shows T/A for both , meaning institutional funds with qualified access. They are out for retail IRAs.

Sold DODIX and invested in ICMUX with the funds. In October ‘24 I had thought DODIX would be an appropriate place to re-enter intermediate bonds in 2025. After the last few years in bond fund land, my patience is short (as will my bond fund duration).

Good points by @msf.
ITRAX / ITRIX looks like a clone - T Rowe Price is listed as a subadvisor. Giroux keeps holdings almost same as PRWCX, but there may be tiny variations. It's part of "Voya Investor Trust" that has several externally subadvised funds.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/837276/000110465917025956/a17-8811_1485bpos.htm#923ed035-a286-4a4a-8c52-16131f487efb_1
"VY® T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Portfolio
Class/Ticker: ADV/ ITRAX; I/ ITRIX; S/ ITCSX; S2/ ITCTX"
If it was a feeder fund, then its holdings would be just 100% of one of the classes of PRWCX.
Anyway, these devices are so that Voya can have a different ERs from the original funds.
A newer way is to simply have a plan level ER/fee and offer the original funds and tickers. Interestingly, these top level ERs may be charges or credits based on plan terms.

There's a fine distinction between feeder funds and share classes, and a not so fine distinction between those and clones.
The distinction between feeder funds and share classes is one that only wonks would appreciate. Multiple share classes of a fund invest in directly the same underlying portfolio. Feeder funds are funds that invest in the same "master" fund that in turn invests in the target portfolio.
In contrast, rather than investing in the same underlying portfolio (either directly or indirectly), clone funds invest in different underlying portfolios which in turn are "nearly" identical copies of each other. They are distinct portfolios, and though usually managed by the same teams, may have slightly different holdings.
The Voya is a clone of the TRP fund. Each fund offers multiple share classes.
------
Wonky detail:
Prior to 1995, funds needed to get an exemption from the SEC to sell multiple classes.

many fund sponsors have adopted another distribution arrangement designed to achieve many of the same business goals as the multiple class structure without the need to obtain exemptions.... This "master-feeder" arrangement comprises a two-tier structure in which one or more funds (the upper tier) invest solely in [shares] of another fund (the lower tier). Although master-feeder structures are functionally similar to multiple class funds, they are viewed as not needing exemptions ...

https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/finend.txt
Summary: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/1995/02/exemption-open-end-management-investment-companies-issuing-multiple-classes-shares-disclosure
The Voya funds are clones of the T. Rowe Price funds. You can tell this by looking at their portfolios (on the same date). They are close but not identical.
For example, Voya's SEC portfolio filing as of Sept 30th shows that MSFT constitutes 5.028296448259% of its fund's portfolio.
In comparison, TRP's filing shows as of Sept 30th, that MSFT constitutes 5.0427048120% of its fund portfolio. (This figure is confirmed on TRP's page).
The clones are close but the underlying portfolios are not identical.

PRWCX classes are PACLX, TRAIX.
Voya offers PRWCX or its classes under its own wrappers/tickers ITRAX, ITRIX, etc (5 classes) so that it can set its own (higher) ERs - most for Voya 401k/403b. Another name for such funds may be feeder funds.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 1/8/25
BEARISH became the top sentiment (37.4%, above average) & neutral remained the bottom sentiment (28.0%, below average); bullish became the middle sentiment (34.7%, below average); Bull-Bear Spread was -2.7% (below average). Investor concerns: Budget, debt, inflation, the Fed, dollar, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (150+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (65+ weeks). For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks up, bonds down, oil up, gold up, dollar up. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 32.40% (negative). Dollar is approaching 9/28/22 high of 114.75. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1823/thread

Not a bet on anything- just maintaining a reasonable overall inflation protection. MMKT = 56%, Fixed = 44%. Incoming pension & SS are sent to MMKT, transferred to checking acct as needed. Always an annual surplus of income over expense, so MMKT gradually increases.

Smart.
I guess I just have too many surprise expenses to be flipping money back and forth between accounts like that. There are always surprises. Wifey can't say "no." But I like your strategy, there.

Sure:
https://www.proshares.com/our-etfs/strategic/ispy

This is just a plain vanilla covered call strategy, targeting 100% of notional amount. I am surprised they need 0.55% ER for something that can be automated. Pro shares are reputable with derivatives and may be they can get better pricing on the calls sold. Look around to see who else offers similar product and how that compares to ISPY.
Is the income paid by the fund entirely ordinary income or about 50% OI and 50% long term cap gain?
I can do better by buying SPY and selling 1/12th of 10% of SPY every month

https://www.stockrover.com/world/insight/summary/Quotes/ISPY
(Doggy poopies! That link does not let you hold that particular security. Just type it into the search box.)
"Derivative income" style. Enough to scare me away. Remember The Big Short.
P/E 27. Unattractively high.....
Div. yield listed I see is 5.9%.
My point is: you can grab a better div. without resorting to risky derivatives. ET (MLP, K-1 tax form) is still spinning off 6.5% and my newest darling can ALMOST match that 5.9%. It's BLX, with its own 5.4% div yield. The BDC outfit known as Ares ARCC will give you 8.7% yield.

PRWCX oddity on 1/7/25 remains. I captured it in a 1-mo screenshot.

Just bought a one year share certificate/CD from a local credit union, paying 4.5%. That is higher than my MMs at Schwab, which are on a trend downward. If you want to phrase it as "betting", I guess I am betting that MMs stay below 4.5% for the next year. As my wife and I get older, I am trying to "relocate" some taxable account money from Schwab online, to local banks and credit unions, where it is more convenient and accessible for my wife. A 4.5% CD at a local credit union fits that effort.

Not a bet on anything- just maintaining a reasonable overall inflation protection. MMKT = 56%, Fixed = 44%. Incoming pension & SS are sent to MMKT, transferred to checking acct as needed. Always an annual surplus of income over expense, so MMKT gradually increases.