My approximation for the closed PRWCX is a mix of TCAF + PYLD + USFR.PRWCX - often imitated, never duplicated.
It varies its equity sleeve between 56% and 72% of its assets (per M* analysis report). That's going to be hard to mirror, let alone track in real time.
Similarly, its bond holdings can vary greatly. M* shows it as "currently" (as of June 30th) having a barbell quality distribution: almost 30% AAA and over 40% single B. At first blush a 50/50-ish mix of multi-sector and AAA (treasury) funds seems like a reasonable fit. But virtually none of PYLD is below BB.
FWIW, using PIMIX as a proxy for PYLD (despite its somewhat higher average credit rating), I've identified a couple of combos (equity fund, PIMIX, and USFR) that come close to tracking PRWCX retrospectively. (An interesting, if somewhat hypothetical, exercise).
For the equity fund I used either QGIAX or CEYIX. I selected these in part because their style boxes are reasonably similar to PRWCX's - blend/growth leaning growth, large cap but not above category average.
69/20/
11 allocation for each equity/PIMIX/USFR combo. The Portfolio Visualizer comparison (annual rebalancing) is here:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7YbNGfKVXrFqHWqj0iKqUiThese combos have very close but slightly lower std dev than PRWCX (
10.4
1% vs.
10.47 for PRWCX), very close but slightly lower Sharpe ratios (0.8
1 and 0.82 vs. PRWCX's 0.83). and somewhat close but lower annualized returns (9.55% and 9.43% vs. PRWCX's 9.78%).
PYLD begs the question: why? A respected management team for sure. But its track record is shorter than four months, during which time it underperformed PIMIX. I could see jumping in if there were no open alternative (e.g. buying TCAF since one cannot get into PRWCX), but that's not the case at Pimco.
I don't expect it to flounder, so buying in early doesn't seem high risk. Still, it's somewhat of a blank slate, especially at Pimco where funds are rather inscrutable.
