See my earlier post in this thread,
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/151208/#Comment_151208

Note that SCHW is much more than an asset-manager. It is broker-dealer, custodian, bank, asset-manager, etc. IMO, it is not a peer of TROW.

Your thoughts on a closer peer...JPM?
Adding JPM to the comparison:
TROW , SCHW, JPM

Only taxes withheld (W-2, 1099, etc) are considered evenly applied and one can do over-withholding from paychecks, IRA or pension withdrawals, etc to avoid penalties related to other income. Otherwise, estimated taxes must be paid quarterly on other income to avoid penalty. IRS would calculate penalty if you don't calculate/include it.

Thanks @Ben
Your summary is in line with our understanding, too. Although not of consequence; one may pay estimated taxes at any time; not having to follow quarterly ending dates, to the best of our understanding. But, your note about Jan. 15th, 2023 is important, too; as we will fully know the tax impact at that time.

I am not a tax professional. What follows is simply my experience: The fourth estimated tax payment for 2022 is due Jan 15th 2023. So you can be quite precise about what you owe by then. But... the IRS says they will not punish a tax payer who pays in estimated taxes 100% of the tax due the previous year. So, whether in quarterly payments as I do, or in a lump sum, as my dad preferred doing, so long as you send the IRS estimated taxes equal to 100% of what your tax bill was in 2021, you are likely to be in accord with the rules of the IRS. You can pay the balance when you file your 2022 return some time before 4/15/ 2022. I hope this is helpful (I also hope it's accurate!)

Stuff happens, eh? An unanticipated LT capital gains from a real estate transaction (land, not a primary residence) will take place in 2022. We're familiar and comfortable with processing the 2022 taxes at a federal and state level; for cost basis calculations and related. However, the dollar value will be significantly higher than normal and will have an impact upon our "taxes due"for 2022, versus a "normal" tax year. We do understand that line entry items for "traditional" taxable income, versus "LT capital gains" will have different impact(s) on the taxes owed; but will show up in the final math for taxes. A consideration is doing a "test" filing account in our 2021 tax program to obtain an idea of the Fed. tax burden.
We've begun to sniff around the internet for clues of the best path forward to avoid "underpayment/penalties". The IRS site offers information regarding doing calculations (what if scenarios) as to paying taxes before filing time via the 1040-ES. Numerous other online sites offer pieces of information as to a proper plan to avoid underpayment/penalties. A fairly common suggestion is to pay "110%" of ones prior year Fed. taxes now. We read these as a "good faith" gesture towards the IRS, that we know we'll need to pay more in taxes for 2022, but we're not yet sure of how much more. The "gesture" being a way to avoid an underpayment penalty.
Gross taxable income basis for the household arrives "only" from pensions, RMDs and SS. All other investment distributions are in IRAs; therefore, no taxable cap. gains are ever a part of our tax schedules. 2022 will be an non-normal tax filing year.
So, continuing to "sniff" around for a best path forward; which may likely contain paying estimated taxes before year end, for the full 2022 tax year.
Suggestions welcomed as to the best path forward, from your knowledge/experience.
Thank you.
Remain curious,
Catch

The 30 day SEC yield is the best approximation of what a fund would return if it held its bonds to maturity/call. If one thinks of a portfolio consisting of a single bond, the SEC yield would be the YTW.
For example, a 5 year bond selling at $104, with a 5% coupon would yield 4.1% to maturity. That's the same as buying a 5 year bond selling at par with a 4.1% coupon. From the point of view of your total return, no difference. These are even treated the same for tax purposes - the higher coupon is treated as return of principal, so that at the end of five years, cost basis of the first bond is $100.
If what you care about is higher interest payments (5% vs. 4.1%) and the loss of 4% in principal (over the life of the bond) is not of concern, then look at the trailing or current yield. If what you care about is total return, including loss (or gain) in principal because bonds don't always trade at par, then look at SEC yield.
There's another SEC yield figure, which is the 7 day yield. It is used for MMFs, and is effectively a current yield calculation. Which makes sense because MMF portfolios mature extremely quickly - current yield and YTW are very similar. With MMFs, looking at TTM is silly. Consider:
VMFXX TTM (1 year) return was 0.17%, while its SEC (current) yield is 1.45%
Vanguard MMFs
Here's what Calamos says about 30 day SEC yield:

30-day SEC yield was introduced in 1988 by the Securities and Exchange Commission to standardize the inputs mutual funds employ to calculate the statistic, allowing for a fairer comparison. The calculation uses the current yields to worst of all fixed income portfolio holdings to estimate how much interest the fund’s assets would have earned over the past 30-day period. After deducting the fund’s expenses and fees, the income earned is annualized and divided by the net asset value on the day of calculation. While standardized, the 30-day SEC yield is limited in that it is based on a static portfolio as of month-end. However, because 30-day SEC yield is based on the yield to worst methodology ..., it is more forward looking and can provide a more accurate indication of the income an investor might expect to receive.

https://www.calamos.com/globalassets/media/documents/sales-ideas/yldcom-033031-0917o-c_final.pdf

Backtesting these two stocks (TROW vs SCHW) with PV, nod to SCHW:
Market Correlation for SCHW = .62, yet had a Max DD of 81% (between 2000- 2003)
TROW vs SCHW

No problem on the M* investor site downloading VWELX data going back to 1929. Of course M* data for that era is only monthly. So while daily values are downloaded, they don't change most days. You might want to do some interpolation as a fixup.

For the first time since inception, DVSMX paid a distribution of 2.3% on July 5. Since 2017, distributions have been paid in December. I suspect that formerly high-flying funds have had to sell winners. Current shareholders, myself included, will foot the tax bill. I wonder if other members' growth holdings have stepped up their distributions. I wouldn't be surprised if December brings another relatively high tax bill for growth funds, as occurred in 2021.

Good points by@msf. Yes, quite correct that an asset manager’s higher AUM would tend to increase its share of a stock holding. In addition, since a lot of TROW may be held by index funds, an investment in it might not reflect management’s true appraisal of the stock.
D&C ‘s list of holdings for DODGX published 3/31/22 does not reference any TROW stock. The list may / may not be complete, but appears to cover at least their top 75 holdings. I checked the earlier Annual Report for the same fund and it appears as of 12/31/21 DODGX held 0 shares of TROW.
Current price TROW $13.10 / Down 2.47%

I am considering buying T-bills. I never did it, so maybe I am confused by something, but I see that 52 week T-bills yield almost exactly 3%.

You got it, T bills are still gaining yield. I figure 3.05% based on the "price for $100" figure for the most recent 52 wk. auction. Makes me wish I hadn't started buying bills as soon as I did.

A question for veteran M* users/those who found something better. The most valuable feature in the old M* for my (quite idiosyncratic) purposes was not the portfolio tracker. It was the ability to export historical performance into a spreadsheet (an option on the Interactive chart until just a few weeks ago).
For instance, when I found a very old fund (Vanguard Wellington in this example), I could click max on the date, and the chart would show the value of $10,000 invested in 1929 when the fund began. A little export button gave the spreadsheet option; et voila, I had monthly performance data on Wellington back to 1929.
Interactive chart is still there, but no export button now
1. Is the export button there on the new paid M* site?
2. Can I do the same thing at MFO?
3. Could I recreate that sort of Wellington returns history on another site?
-for instance, Dividend Shares was one of the oldest funds and among the largest for several decades. A lucky search, inspired in part by mfs, revealed it was eventually renamed Alliance Bernstein relative value. That fund shows the history to 1932 on the M* site, but alas I cannot download as before :-(

According to Morningstar, it is down 12.99% as of yesterday. If your number is correct, I am doing better by about 8%.

"I am on target... I use Merriman's 60/40 index portfolio as a benchmark. Presently doing about 3% better than it has."
As of the end of June -17.27 % return for 60/40 Merriman's ! Par for the course.
Trying to enjoy the ride, Derf

I wonder whether the problems discussed above are related to the personal decision not to buy TIPS or T-bonds and hold them until maturity? I am considering buying T-bills. I never did it, so maybe I am confused by something, but I see that 52 week T-bills yield almost exactly 3%. I understand that I would miss liquidity for 1 year, but can you suggest anything else risk free (apart for I-bonds) which gives 3% per year guaranteed? Same logic should apply to TIPS, but holding them for 5 years is something to be considered more carefully. Any comments?

Thanks for all of your thoughtful comments.
STIP. -1.57%
PZRMX -4.51%. Pimco Inflation response multi asset
Prfrx. -4.98%. TROW floating rate
All as of July 8 data from M*…. Apparently fighting inflation is not that easy. More money has been lost fighting inflation than at the point of a gun.
Money in my grandson’s piggy bank is even for the year. He told me he could handle losing money in stocks but not in the safe part of his portfolio.
The fact that TIPS are losing less than AGG and the like is meaningless.

I am sorry I missed this thread earlier about Bluerock and that I mentioned it in my July column. I wasn't making a case for buying the fund, but more along the line of, "here is a real estate fund that's actually up on the year."
I too am curious what portion of the fund is marked accurately. But I believe what happens with Bluerock is what happens with ALL private assets in one way or the other.
In general, if one looks at Private Equity funds, why are public pension funds historically so eager to buy into them. Charlie Munger hints that its the lack of mark to market, the lack of volatility, that makes private assets deceptively easier to hold. After all, they are no different than public assets in the real world, just their mark to market is differently scheduled. And over time as the world rebounds back, the assets self correct in time, if not in price.
Last year, was a bumper year for Public Equity REITs. VNQ was up 40% and Bluerock was up 21%. VNQ overshot.
This year, VNQ is down 20% and Bluerock is up 14%. One of them is wrong. I cant tell you which one but I have a gut which one it might be.
Bluerock has a 2Bn inflow YTd and VNQ has 900mm outlflow YTD.
That explains a lot of the relative returns.
Who saw recently that Calpers sold a chunk of Private Equity portfolio at a 10% discount. hmmmm.

Thanks for the update & comment. 
I did try with 1Password on my Mac laptop but don't know how to avoid Virtual Keyboard for a password every time.
OTOH, 
after setting up on Fidelity Fullview/eMoney, only after it's funded with $, not just a blank account number, with an aggregator, It tracks and reports a/c balance with details...Go figure...
Now you can see a/c details on TD, without logging in!
Thanks.
Majick

I find "Top Institutional Holders" tables of dubious value. The pecking order correlates with the size of the institution. Vanguard owns a lot of everything because Vanguard is larger than other institutions. That doesn't mean that it's enamored with TROW.
Edit: The pecking order is significant as it represents the control a management firm has over a particular company. But it doesn't provide a good indication of how attractive the management firm sees a company as an investment.
As of March 31, The Vanguard Group had $4,227,459,554,000 (i.e. $4.2trillion) AUM.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102909/000110465922059997/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml
The management firm at the bottom of the chart had a mere $328,759,984,000 (i.e. $328 billion) AUM.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/764068/000076406822000005/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml
Even that "meger" amount is twice what D&C manages: $164,570,139,000 (i.e. $164 billion).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/200217/000095012322005782/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml
Of course one should adjust these figures, restricting them to only AUM of funds that might possibly invest in TROW (e.g. US stock funds, balanced funds, foreign based funds holding US equities, etc.). Still, it is size that matters, and so likely that D&C isn't often found on lists of top ten institutional owners.