This is of interest to me, but I am suspect of Vanguard's investing approach. They are a traditional "passive" investing firm, dependent on very low management fees, which is not a glowing basis for more active management of multisector and core plus. You can certainly offer a fund that meets categorical definitions, but if this is just another passive management fund, using indexes and existing funds, that does not excite me as a potential investment.

Vanguard is often overlooked as an "active" investing firm.
They managed over $1.6 trillion in active assets as of December 31, 2020.
Vanguard was the third-largest manager of actively managed assets as of September 30, 2019.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421014946/fp0067545_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated July 28, 2021 to the
Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information and
Summary Prospectus, each dated September 1, 2020, as amended.
As previously communicated in a Supplement dated May 20, 2021, effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021, the Fund is publicly offered on a limited basis to only certain investors. Effective as of the close of business on September 1, 2021, existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account will no longer be permitted to invest in the Fund on behalf of new clients. Accordingly, effective as of the close of business on September 1, 2021, this Supplement will replace the Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the Fund’s Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information and Summary Prospectus.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) is publicly offered on a limited basis.
Only certain investors are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
The following groups are permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
3.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
4.Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.
If we use GDP as a proxy for the tax base (I'm open to better suggestions), then the US is not growing its debt more slowly than its tax base. Quite the opposite. Debt has outstripped tax base (GDP), growing from 40% of GDP in 1966, and from a post-war low of 30.6% in Q3 1981 to 129% in Q4 2020 and 127.5% in Q1 2021 (most recent data). That's significantly higher than even the WW2 peak of 112.7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/
If you want to ensure that debt grows more slowly than the tax base, you have to either reduce the rate of growth of debt (slow or reverse increases in spending), make the GDP grow faster (either expand the economy faster or inflate your way out since we're looking at nominal dollars), or expand the tax base, i.e. broaden what is subject to taxes. Hence the wealth tax that Lewis mentioned.
Here's the most current Fed chart for household net worth. The dip at the end of Lewis' chart is Q1 2020, when the figure was $111K. Since then it has soared, as seen in the tail of the current chart. In Q1 2021, household net worth is $137K, as he noted.
A rise of over 23% in a year, "despite the devastating economic effects of the coronavirus ... driven in large part by surging stock and home prices after interest rates were lowered to combat the financial fallout of the pandemic."
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/542791-us-household-wealth-hits-record-130-trillion-despite-pandemic

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TNWBSHNO

@rforno,
From your chart the "Lower 490" look as though they have not even made it back to Jan 2020 levels. Also, I believe historically the "Top Ten" stocks have regularly out weighed and - in good times - out performed the "Lower 490". Isn't that how market cap weight indexes work?
Market Cap-Weight verses Factor-Weight Indexes:

Longtime market watcher and Wharton School professor Jeremy Siegel has argued for decades that investors should consider alternatives to popular market cap-weighted funds, particularly ETFs that weigh their holdings based on fundamental factors such as earnings growth, dividends or momentum.
Now, that tide is slowly turning. Though market cap-weighted funds are still the most widely held in the $5 trillion ETF market, issuers are growing increasingly comfortable offering factor-weighted and other niche products.

market-cap-vs-fundamentals-etf-weighting-and-the-average-investor

Take them out of the S&P and see what the rest of the 'market' (er, index) has returned....or not.
https://www.thestreet.com/trends/news/heres-what-the-s-p-500-looks-like-in-2020-without-big-tech

by Andrew Bary, Barron's article:
The biggest keep getting bigger and more dominant.
The five technology giants that dominate the S&P 500 index -- Apple ( AAPL ) , Microsoft ( MSFT ) , Alphabet (GOOG), Amazon.com ( AMZN) , and Facebook ( FB ) -- accounted for a combined 22.9% of the index Friday, an apparent record. The data are from S&P Dow Jones Indices.
Three of the tech leaders -- Microsoft ( MSFT ), Alphabet, and Facebook ( FB ) -- hit new highs Friday as the S&P 500 reached a record.
Rarely has the S&P 500 been so concentrated at the top. The Big Five were a combined 21.7% at the end of 2020.
At year-end 2019, the five largest stocks in the index totaled 17.2% of the index. At that time, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) was No. 5., not Facebook ( FB ), which now ranks fifth. At year-end 2018, the top five were 15.4% of the S&P 500 index (Berkshire again was fifth).
It is notable that at the end of 1999, right before the peak in tech stocks, the top five companies were 16.8% of the S&P 500. Those five stocks in order of size were Microsoft ( MSFT ), General Electric (GE), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Walmart (WMT), and Exxon Mobil (XOM). GE, Cisco, and Exxon are now nowhere near the top.
So far this year, Microsoft ( MSFT ) (up 30.2% through Friday), Alphabet (up 57.3% based on the nonvoting shares, GOOG) and Facebook ( FB ) (up 35.4%) are powering the leaders. Apple ( AAPL ) and Amazon ( AMZN ) were up about 12% year-to-date through Friday, behind the S&P 500's 17.5% gain.

The latest U.S. household net worth is $137 trillion--https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-10/u-s-household-net-worth-reaches-fresh-record-on-homes-stocks--so this graph is a bit old, but the point is there are always these cries about how the government is spending too much as though there isn't really a source for paying back some of that debt, i.e, a wealth tax. The majority of that household net worth is owned by the wealthy

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.

I don't understand why this is considered a "silly question, silly answer". It's a question that I've asked myself many, many times over the last couple of years as I've watched the equity market continually rack up gains.

OJ,
You have seriously asked if you should bail 100%? Okay.
Are you in their circumstance?
In any case, their not-question was even worse.
retired ... pension .., house paid off ... income greatly exceeds ... expenses.
... gotten to a point [where] we want to be done with stock market investing altogether. ... don't want bonds ... annuities ... just want to be done. Are we being foolish?
There is only one answer then, and we should take them at their word and assume they are serious, and have the mattress ready. (The first answer before this is to the only posed question, which is yes, but they have already said they are clear about that, meaning they do wish to be foolish.)
The answer is to do something asap with all these unwanted moneys, meaning give them away. Charity, kids, gov entity local or elsewhere,
Imagine being in this predicament and writing into a site or authority or newspaper.
A nonserious question and a nonserious answer.

I don't understand why this is considered a "silly question, silly answer". It's a question that I've asked myself many, many times over the last couple of years as I've watched the equity market continually rack up gains.

A few of the perks that come with being ultrawealthy.

“Families with wealth of $100 million or more can borrow at less than 1%,” said Dan Gimbel, principal at NEPC Private Wealth....Yachts and private jets have been especially popular buys in the past year
Loans also allow the ultra-wealthy to avoid the hit of capital gains taxes....“Asset-backed loans are one of the principal tools that the ultra-wealthy are using to game their tax obligations down to zero,”
Some private banks offer mortgages on homes for as long as 20 years with fixed interest rates as low as 1% for the period.

Cheap Credit

FSDAX has tracked VIS (VINAX) pretty closely historically, but over the last 18 months FSDAX trails VINAX by 30%.
How much of this is virus related?

Prior to the virus (looking back 5 years) FSDAX was out performing VINAX by 47% and from that perspective has retraced those gains to a March 2020 lows. Since March 2020 the two have moved in lock step again.

I was for a few years, but cut it lose in 2019 or 2020 as part of a portfolio redo. I liked the holdings but was surprised BA was still (at the time) the #1 or 2 holding - not sure where it is now, but that company is hurting and IMO shouldn't be that high up on the fund.

Three-quarters of Americans agree the country is facing a retirement crisis, making research around the topic more relevant than ever. We dug into the data on every angle of retirement and compiled the most important statistics below. Read on to learn about what today’s retirees face, from financial challenges to lifestyle decisions and more.

https://annuity.org/retirement/retirement-statistics/
Does the chart below appear to be for a couple or an individual? If single, $100K / yr (for a couple) in retirement spending seems like a high hurdle to achieve. But wait... housing costs wouldn't double, would they for a couple? Are these studies forgetting that, in reality, many retirees have a wife, life partner, or family member that share many of these expenses. Also, some of these numbers are additive (take a look at telephones services...the subgroup costs add up to the bold number. The housing numbers don't add up...what gives?

I like RPGAX too. I believe the Blackstone investment serves as a hedge against black swan events as in March 2020. Other than cash all asset classes fell in that time period. A few rebounded quickly and the others followed after the Fed intervened. So I question the value of the 10% Blackstone investment versus having the equivalent amount in cash. Also how much Blackstone contributes to the total return over say a 10 year period.
This fund is more growth oriented than Vanguard. If rotation from growth to value style holds, VGWAX will stay competitive. For now I have too many overlapp with the top 10 holdings of TRP. Thus I will stay with VGWAX.

Does TRP say *what* that 10% hedge fund black box is? Hedge? Risk premia? Long/Short? etc....

I like RPGAX too. I believe the Blackstone investment serves as a hedge against black swan events as in March 2020. Other than cash all asset classes fell in that time period. A few rebounded quickly and the others followed after the Fed intervened. So I question the value of the 10% Blackstone investment versus having the equivalent amount in cash. Also how much Blackstone contributes to the total return over say a 10 year period.
This fund is more growth oriented than Vanguard. If rotation from growth to value style holds, VGWAX will stay competitive. For now I have too many overlapp with the top 10 holdings of TRP. Thus I will stay with VGWAX.

Think I am heading to my bunker which is well stocked with beers, wine and tiolet paper. More seriously, several good fund managers i used did very well through this year's ups and downs (and last year). Very impressed with PRWCX and VWINX. Being patient helped to let everything recovered in fall after 2020's drawdown. FRIFX came back strongly this year. For bonds we like bank loans.

There is nothing wrong to rebalance a bit after a run up like we had this year. Stocks are fully priced and bonds are not doing so great either. Having some cash is always good if we have a pullback in the second half of this year.
For now I am holding still. Reviewed our portfolio carefully and believe we are better in positioning than that of last February. Earning reporting is here and let see how it fares.
Remember, the Delta variants is rising rapidly across US, especially in regions with low vaccination rates. This triggers fear of the possibility of returning to Feb 2020 and we all know how that impact the economy. I think we are not out of the wood with COVID. The Olympic event is a good example what we are facing going forward.

I dialed down a few funds over the last 4 or 5 weeks & now looking to dial some value funds I bought at Vanguard , down. These were purchased in Nov. 2020. Thankfully they were in tax advantage account.
Are you in the sell, buy, or holding pattern ???
Stay Kool, Derf

@bee, thank you. Should included the ticker symbols in my discussion.
Thanks for remindering VMVFX. I left the fund when the original manager left and the portfolio underwent considerable changes that did not make sense. Moved the asset to a growth oriented international small cap several years ago. More volatile for sure, but the fund has a shorter recovery period and about the same % drawdown as VMVFX in 2020. GISOX has a hard close when the fund is held outside of Grandeur Peaks.
PRIDX is closed to new investors. There are not many good international small cap funds.