Here’s a list of some favorably mentioned fund rating services. (Obviously, they’ve overlooked rising star MFO.): https://www.thebalance.com/best-mutual-fund-research-sites-2466453
Others may have additional sites to share. ..... I like to look at Max Funds
, but have no insights into who operates it or what their ethics and independence may be. I’ll assume, until proven wrong, they’re at least dealing from a position of objectivity and integrity. http://www.maxfunds.com/
What I was looking at this morning was their take on PRWCX vs. RPGAX. Expect I’ll need to pull a small distribution from one or the other sometime soon. Here’s what’s curious
: Max Fund rates PRWCX substantially lower (Score 82% / “good”) compared to RPGAX (Score 96% “excellent”). Both, they project, could experience a “worst case” 40% drawdown over the next year. In most other respects their performance outlook for the two funds is quite similar. PRWCX has the lower fees. And everybody and his brother has fallen in love with it. So why the sharp difference in ratings? Admittedly, the funds belong to different peer groups.
But I suspect there’s more than that going on here.
These guys aren’t dumb. I’ve followed them for many years. Especially, I value that they’re often “out of step” with other fund rating services. Anytime everyone
agrees about this fund or that fund I get nervous. All I can detect in this case is that they see PRWCX as bloated and also much more vulnerable to hot money
flows and therefore rapid redemptions than is RPGAX (as reflected in their max-o-meter
graphics.) My own take is that RPGAX is much less a “one man band” than is PRWCX. Most of its investments are in other TRP funds, making RPGAX something of a fund of funds.