Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
From your M* link I went to the performance tab. At the bottom of that page M* creates a list for your...minus the tickers. You might look at the portfolios of these funds as they may hold a considerable amount of global companies. Also, FMIJX is a solid risk adverse MC/LC blend fund in the international space. PRIDX and ARTJX might be two other considerations.
You might also look at MIOPX's sibling fund, MFAPX, also managed by Kristian Heugh. A very similar fund though with some differences. I'm inclined to agree with @stillers that Morgan Stanley looks like it has some of the most complementary funds for PRWAX. That's under the assumption that you're looking for an all cap international growth fund to pair with an all cap domestic growth fund. (Lipper classifies both the MS funds as all cap.)
MFAPX has a somewhat less emphatic growth orientation (74% in growth stocks vs. 88% for MIOPX). Perhaps commensurate with that, it is less volatile (3 year std deviation of 14.84 vs. 19.65) and has a smaller max drawdown (17.26% vs. 23.43% June-Sept 2011).
OTOH, that lower volatility also translates into less upside capture (99% vs 119% average over the past three years).
Over the 10+ year lifetime of MFAPX (the shorter-lived fund), the two have reached nearly the same point with cumulative returns of 296.82% for MFAPX and 308.70% for MIOPX. MFAPX held a slight, fairly consistent edge until 2020. MIOPX has done significantly better recently (and significantly worse in March 2020), again consistent with its somewhat more growthy nature.
Lots of overlap. What works better in the pairing depends on what you're looking for.
Note that both these funds sport very compact portfolios, holding 31 and 37 stocks. In contrast, PRWAX holds 82.
PRWAX only has about a 4% weighting in small-caps according to Morningstar, with an average market cap for its portfolio of $124 billion. I think one choice might be to cut back some on PRWAX and replace that with RPGEX instead--another T. Rowe fund that has done well with a growth style but that invests half of its assets overseas. Those two funds are sharing the same analytical team so you'll get more of the same flavor as PRWAX with a global/international spin.
I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that a recent benchmark change for PRWAX portended a change in portfolio.
On March 1, 2021, the T. Rowe Price New America Growth Fund will change its name to the T. Rowe Price All-Cap Opportunities Fund. Accordingly, effective March 1, 2021, all references in the summary prospectus and prospectus to the T. Rowe Price New America Growth Fund will be replaced by reference to the T. Rowe Price All-Cap Opportunities Fund.
In addition, effective March 1, 2021, the fund’s primary benchmark will change from the Russell 1000 Growth Index to the Russell 3000 Index. The Russell 3000 Index includes companies of all market capitalizations, which is more representative of the fund’s investment program.
In addition to the changes noted in the filing, the prospectus description of the strategy was changed slightly, from:
In selecting stocks, the advisor looks for many characteristics, typically including, but not limited to: · earnings growth rates that generally exceed that of the average company in the Russell 1000® Growth Index;...
In selecting stocks, the advisor looks for many characteristics, typically including, but not limited to: · earnings growth rates that generally exceed that of the average company in the Russell 3000® Index;...
This is why I mentioned the fact that the Morgan Stanley funds were considered all cap by Lipper. However, while I caught the broadening coverage of smaller stocks, I missed the fact that the fund is also now tempering its growth orientation. Instead of being "hyper growth" oriented (growing faster than the growth side of the market), it's now seeking companies growing faster than just the market average.
The portfolio you're looking at on M* is dated June 30, 2021. Not enough time to see whether PRWAX will be making portfolio changes or whether the textual changes were just for show.
Comments
PRWAX 87.89 US 8.23 Non US
MIOPX 8.45 US 86.70 Non US
Looks like a good match. Thank you.
MFAPX has a somewhat less emphatic growth orientation (74% in growth stocks vs. 88% for MIOPX). Perhaps commensurate with that, it is less volatile (3 year std deviation of 14.84 vs. 19.65) and has a smaller max drawdown (17.26% vs. 23.43% June-Sept 2011).
OTOH, that lower volatility also translates into less upside capture (99% vs 119% average over the past three years).
Over the 10+ year lifetime of MFAPX (the shorter-lived fund), the two have reached nearly the same point with cumulative returns of 296.82% for MFAPX and 308.70% for MIOPX. MFAPX held a slight, fairly consistent edge until 2020. MIOPX has done significantly better recently (and significantly worse in March 2020), again consistent with its somewhat more growthy nature.
Lots of overlap. What works better in the pairing depends on what you're looking for.
Note that both these funds sport very compact portfolios, holding 31 and 37 stocks. In contrast, PRWAX holds 82.
(Apologies to Shadow if this was already posted in an earlier thread.)
In addition to the changes noted in the filing, the prospectus description of the strategy was changed slightly, from: to: This is why I mentioned the fact that the Morgan Stanley funds were considered all cap by Lipper. However, while I caught the broadening coverage of smaller stocks, I missed the fact that the fund is also now tempering its growth orientation. Instead of being "hyper growth" oriented (growing faster than the growth side of the market), it's now seeking companies growing faster than just the market average.
The portfolio you're looking at on M* is dated June 30, 2021. Not enough time to see whether PRWAX will be making portfolio changes or whether the textual changes were just for show.