...And yet, I just read that Medicare will eat the increase. Should have remembered.

There's a lot of that notion going around. Let's walk through that.
I did this relatively quickly - please check my math. Also see Disclaimer below.
Looking ahead...
If your gross SS is $15,000 annually, a 2022 5.9% COLA increases your gross by $885. If SS is $20,000, an increase of $1,180.
No definitive word yet on the Medicare Part B increase for 2022.
Looking back...
In 2020, Part B increased 6.72% to $144.60 monthly from $135.50. Annually that was a $109 increase.
In 2021, Part B increased 2.70% to $148.50 monthly from $144.60. Annually that was a $47 increase.
So...
IF the past two years are any indication, it is very unlikely, barring an extraneously high Pt B increase for 2022, that anyone grossing $15K-$20K annually will not be in a better net position is 2022.
NOTE: Part D premiums are NOT considered here but would also affect net, if applicable, as would other variables, increase in Pt B penalty, etc.
Disclaimer: Data provided by long-since retired auditor type whose calculation accuracy rate may or may not resemble his stellar rate from back in the day. Just sayin'.

...Medicare will eat it anyhow.
https://www.kitv.com/story/44959527/social-security-benefits-get-a-huge-bump-but-retirees-need-to-do-more-to-protect-savings

Re IRS penalties etc. vs a gogo bull market.
I have just been informed that an older relative, not out of it but trending, hasn't taken RMDs (large sums, meaning v large accounts) for the last 5y, nor filed returns ... and therefore looks to owe over a half-mil in penalties, taxes, and late fees. Maybe well over.
(This is a 403b, so hey, I wonder if you can sue TIAA for not automatically moving the RMD each year into some nonretirement cash account ... assuming they did not.)
Everything in SP500 ETF, I am told.
Anyway, to slightly soften the grievous sting of this supreme idiocy, I was going to rough-crunch how much extra they made in this almost-doubling bull market over that timespan. Close to a half-mil?
I ask about this only because their heirs will be, rightly, wailing about how many college educations etc. the forfeited moneys could have gone toward. And so on.
(What a dumbass mess, yes.)

there’s a fee wavier which appears to drop the ER down to 0.29%
As strange as this may sound, you're reading it backward. The gross ER is 0.29%, while the net ER, after accounting for fee waivers is higher, at 0.31%.
This is because the waiver currently in effect says that the ER will be no higher than 0.31% including a clawback of previously waived expenses.
If the current ER without waivers were, say, 0.35%, then 0.04% would be waived and the ER would be 0.31%. But the current ER without waivers is 0.29%. The fund management is thus allowed to take another 0.02% to get back fees it previously forwent.
The clawback is limited to 0.02% because according to the fee waiver agreement, the net ER cannot rise above 0.31%.
As the prospectus states: "Fees waived and expenses paid under this agreement (and a previous limitation of 0.35%) are subject to reimbursement to T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., by the fund whenever the class’ expense ratio is below 0.31%."

If I'm interpreting portfolio data correctly from the TRP website dated 9/30/21, PRWCX equity allocation has increased to 75.68%.
Sector Allocation
As a percentage of Total Net Assets
As of 9/30/2021
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
14.33%
HEALTH CARE
13.58%
CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY
10.58%
FINANCIALS
10.28%
UTILITIES
7.19%
INDUSTRIALS & BUSINESS SERVICES
7.04%
COMMUNICATION SERVICES
5.97%
OPTION
4.48%
CONSUMER STAPLES
1.92%
ENERGY
0.18%
REAL ESTATE
0.13%
Top 10 Holdings
MonthlyQuarterly
Represents 38.51% of Total Net Assets
As of
9/30/2021
Microsoft
7.02%
Amazon.com
5.51%
GE
4.48%
PNC Financial Services Group
4.03%
Yum! Brands
3.16%
Thermo Fisher Scientific
3.11%
Alphabet Class C
3.08%
UnitedHealth Group
2.98%
Marsh & McLennan
2.70%
Humana
2.43%

OK, with a search I did find the following info from Ameritrade. It apparently deals with margin purchases, which I never even consider, so it's probably a logic "don't care".

Maintenance Requirements on Stock
How are Maintenance Requirements on a Stock Determined?
In accordance with the rules of the exchanges, TD Ameritrade places “Initial and Maintenance” margin requirements on accounts. These requirements dictate the amount of equity needed in an account in order to hold and create new margin positions.
All broker/dealers, including TD Ameritrade, Inc., reserve the right at any time to adjust minimum maintenance requirements. This adjustment can be done on an individual account basis as well as on a stock-by-stock basis, depending on a stock's trading volatility and other factors. Your account may be subject to higher margin equity requirements based on how market fluctuations affect your portfolio.
Below are the maintenance requirements for most long and short positions. However, concentrated positions and certain stocks may have special requirements between 35% and 100%.
Non-marginable stocks cannot be used as collateral for a margin loan. Likewise, you may not use margin to purchase non-marginable stocks.

Lost 18.14% in 1Q 2020, vs 10.94% for FMSDX .

WBALX lost only -8% in 1Q 2020.
But....FMSDX has a 3 year annual return of close to +17%, versus TSHIX at 12.5% and WBALX at 10.6%.

The higher rates only benefit newer issues (at higher rates). The existing holdings (that have lower rates) become increasingly less attractive.

Even if the fund holds

floating rate securities / adjustable rate mortgages?

Possibly. ARM funds were being launched left and right in the early 90s. And then they began dropping like flies as intererst rates rose.

In 1995, directors of the T. Rowe Price Adjustable-Rate U.S. Government Fund voted to broaden its investment policy and to change its name to the T. Rowe Price Short-Term U.S. Government Fund.
...
While the original ARM fund concept may have been valid, Randall Merk, director of fixed income investments for American Century, says, the industry "badly overstated" the protection such funds can afford shareholders during periods of rising interest rates.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-06-22-9706201623-story.html

5.9% feels very tasty.

Thanks @sfnative. 5.9% is pretty nice.
from SS website:

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for approximately 70 million Americans will increase 5.9 percent in 2022, the Social Security Administration announced today.

Check out WBALX for a solid 30%- 50% alloc fund.

M* classifies TIAA-CREF Lifestyle Income Fund as a 15%-30% allocation fund. In the summary prospectus, TIAA benchmarks the fund against M*'s Conservative Target Risk Index, which is a static 20/80 index.
https://www.tiaa.org/public/investment-performance/investment/profile?ticker=93570885
It's a fund of funds targeting a 20% allocation to underlying equity funds. Its current portfolio holds 19.86% in equities (per M*).
Its performance (raw or risk-adjusted) doesn't compare favorably to a target date retirement income fund like VTINX, let alone a 30%-50% fund like VWINX.
The fact that you're looking at the advisor class of shares rather than the retail class of shares (TSILX) suggests that this is being proposed for (or is already in) a managed portfolio. For that purpose, it's a serviceable fund, but nothing I'd get excited about.

The CPI-W data above has been updated to include September. You now have all the data necessary to calculate exactly the 2022 COLA. Be the first on your block with the number.

The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) increased 5.9 percent over the last 12 months to an index level of 269.086 (1982-84=100). For the month, the index rose 0.3 percent prior to seasonal adjustment.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CWUR0000SA0?amp%3bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true

5.9%. https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/#10-2021-2

Has anyone considered TSHIX as a 30-50% stock allocation fund?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSHIX?p=TSHIX&.tsrc=fin-srch

Before you pull the trigger on SCHD you might want to revisit this thread posted earlier this summer. Lynn Bolin had a lot to say about Revisiting Defensive Funds.
I have been using DIVO for sometime now and I am pleased so far. I also hold a position in CDC but everyone has different needs, wants and portfolio's.

Here’s a clip of what Ed said re cash:
“So, back to asset allocation – obviously have enough cash reserves to fund at least two years of living expenses, in insured certificates of deposit. There is a market to be shopped there in smaller banks and credit unions, with nine to twelve month certificate yields running between 35 and 45 basis points. In terms of currencies, if your liabilities are dollar-denominated, your investments also should be. The exception is using international funds that do not hedge back their foreign currency exposure to dollars. In terms of bonds, favor those with maturities of less than a year, generally using some of the ultra-short bond funds available from Vanguard or Northern Funds.“
@bee Good point on oil. It’s taught me the value of patience and sticking to your guns, as most of us abandoned our oil positions way back and watched its price fall into negative territory (early 2020). Yet - here it is at near $83. I remember T Boon Pickins predicting this price rise a few years ago. T. Boone had it right. Unfortunately he died in 2019.

Saying any of these funds should be used as "cash" positions is inaccurate, isn't it? Sounds more like a 'want' for income generating funds. Certainly not cash. Maybe you can stretch the term cash using ultra short bonds, but I wouldn't say any holding that can easily drop 5-10-15% can be considered cash equivalent. Just my 2 cents.

”See Ed Studzinski's commentary this month.”

Interesting commentary. Ed seems of the opinion we’re facing hyper-inflation. (But please read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.) He doesn’t much address ron’s question if I understand what ron is asking (kind of vague).
But, yes, as I think Shostakovich observes, Ed recommends staying very short on your fixed income duration - out to only a year or two. He points to 2 funds he likes that do that. Since “dividends” usually refers to stocks, not bonds, I gather that ron is contemplating some type of fund that invests in dividend paying companies. Hmmm … Tough call because these types of funds have run up a lot (ie PRFDX) this year and I never like buying high. But, what do I know?
A fund like like RPSIX will provide maybe 15-25% exposure to stocks while still playing mainly in the fixed income area. Not a bad choice - however, the bond duration is likely longer than Ed recommends. And there are combo funds like ALAAX that carry a slightly higher equity content - while still focusing on the income producing type stocks.
Real estate is sometimes included in that area, but it’s had a great run up this year. I’d be loath to buy a REIT at these levels. I’m thinking a utilities fund might be a better value if seeking dividend paying companies.
Full disclosure: I’m using a lot of GNMA funds in my fixed income portion. They’re on the relatively shorter end of the duration curve presently (for the type of fund) - only out 3-5 years, but still much farther out than Ed deems prudent. I like that they’re of a higher quality credit than corporate bonds and I don’t mind loosing a bit of $$ on them as long as the equity / risk-asset areas keep climbing.
No easy answers.
Here’s 1 out of many articles on using dividend paying stocks or funds. I haven’t had time to read it closely, but it appears something ron might find of interest - if only to encourage him to do more research on the subject. Here

Inception Date: 9 / 28
Opened at $50. Dropped by 3 cents today (NAV $49.97)
TBUX Chart from Lipper (Growth of $10,000):

Should be a great fund. I’d expect assets to grow quickly. Fido = 99% good. But occasionally they toss a curve ball.
How about a limit order above ask? Pretty sure I read that you can do it to insure a purchase.