I recall the "dot.com" unwind clearly. The "psuedo" tech. wanna-be's of that period were seriously overpriced and hoping to provide a profit. Bon Jovi, Wing and a Prayer, flyers. Many were not the mature tech. organizations of today.
Anyway, I placed Fido's Over the Counter fund for a view compared to the whatever the composition of SPY may have been at the time. I dug through old paper documents, but could not find any info for the top 10 holdings of FOCPX at the beginning of 2000.
The chart shows the story in the high pricing and the steep drop. You will also note moving across the chart, the time frames for recovery periods. And 2008 was just around the corner.
FOCPX versus SPY January 2000 - 2007

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

DJIA +.24 S&P500 +.24 NASNAQ +.03 RUSSELL 2K +.33 MY PORTFOLIO (-.18) 7/26/2021
What did you're portfolio say ?
Just wondering, Derf

@rforno, did you see the rest of the S&P 500 playing catch up. From your chart they look as though they have not even made it back to Jan2020 levels. Also, I believe historically the "Top Ten" stocks have regularly out performed the "Bottom 490".
Isn't that how market cap weight indexes work?

Yep, totally. I just posted that as a reminder to all that the S&P index =! "the market" and not necessarily reflective of reality or 'main street economics.'

@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.

EDUCATION BURDEN
Goldman Sachs said in a research note its one year price targets on the listed tutoring stocks would be cut by 78% on average. The impact, the note said, would be mostly due to the ban on weekend and winter and summer holiday tutoring, which brought in up to 80% of the firms' revenue.
China's for-profit education sector has been under scrutiny as part of Beijing's push to ease pressure on school children and reduce a cost burden on parents that has contributed to a drop in birth rates.
More than 75% of students aged from around 6 to 18 in China attended after-school tutoring classes in 2016, according to the most recent figures from the Chinese Society of Education, and anecdotal evidence suggests that percentage has risen over recent years.
"In the long run, it is definitely good news for the children as they don’t have to immerse themselves in endless homework," said Zhu Li, a Chinese parent in Haidian District in Beijing.
"But on the other hand, it might not be so good if they fail to enter a good university."

https://reuters.com/world/china/chinas-tal-education-expects-hit-new-private-tutoring-rules-2021-07-25/

Risk seems harder to narrow down but I have always found Maximum DD and Ulcer Index understandable and helpful.

How well a fund do and recover relative to its benchmark during downturn is important. Those funds recover in shorter duration tend to do better in the longer term. MFO Premium allows screening each asset classes over several drawdowns dated way back. Like funds with higher % active shares and having top 10 holdings differ than those found in S&P500.

Per @msf:

IMHO, the key distinction between cryptocurrencies and central bank digital encrypted currencies is that the latter are ultimately issued by central banks.

That makes sense to me. Relatedly, the stability of each CBDC will be directly linked to the stability of the paper currency of the country issuing that CDBC. Presumably, maintaining the dollar's stability will be an important consideration for the Fed when deciding whether to recommend developing one.
Also on the subject of CDBC's, I ran across this 15 minute video clip yesterday. It includes comments made by the director of the Digital Currency Initiative at the MIT Media Lab.
A couple of excerpts from the short written description of the video:

The idea of a CBDC in the U.S. is aimed, in part, at making sure the dollar stays the monetary leader in the world economy.
(But, one of the) concern(s) is access. According to the Pew Research Center, 7% of Americans say they don’t use the internet. For Black Americans, that rises to 9%, and for Americans over the age of 65, that rises to 25%. Americans with a disability are about three times as likely as those without a disability to say they never go online. That is part of what MIT is researching.

Warning. There is an ad at the beginning..... challenges to the U.S. dollar

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.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773485/000077348521000009/nagstatandsumsticker12-20202.htm
(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:

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;...

to:

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.

Interesting conversation will Niall Furgeson regarding digital money:
wealthtrack-weekly-investment-show-with-consuelo-mack

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.

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/miopx/portfolio
PRWAX 87.89 US 8.23 Non US
MIOPX 8.45 US 86.70 Non US
Looks like a good match. Thank you.

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.

Given that this fund holds leveraged ETFs amplifying exposure 3X the S&P 500, I don’t find it particularly defensive. I imagine the goal is to get out of them in time during market slides. Be careful.

For the loves of all that's holy, this is not a fund worth investing in and paying 2% ER for the privilege. It currently ONLY holds a 60/40 split between the Vanguard 500 ETF and ProShares UltraPro S&P500 .... pretty much any investor could do the same thing for free.

I'm puzzled by the question. I mean, we do our best to do our homework, due diligence, to find the mutual funds which have great track records, are suited to our goals and risk tolerance. I confess I'm not an expert, so I trust the Fund Managers to deploy my money, and everyone else's who invest in the fund, with knowledgable deftness regarding issues like inflation, political risks, dollar strength and weakness, and whether to play defense or go on offense and be aggressive, when circumstances warrant it. I just think it's almost impossible to be reacting in a meaningful way to global macro headlines. Buy low, sell high. If inflation takes hold--- or God forbid--- STAGFLATION---- the cycle will have to play out. Hopefully, we're paying attention and can make our own individual informed decisions as to whether we want to hide in Treasuries or... whatever. I do believe it is wisest to be moderate, not trying to shoot out the lights in the arena, or "shoot the moon." Cover as many bases as you can. Do not expect skyrocketing profits--- as long as you're being PRUDENT. Is your time-horizon short? Then priorities and strategies will be different than a lot of us.
I'm retired but have my eye on the future, for my heirs. So I'm less conservative than I'd be, otherwise. Still, I own more BONDS than I did just 4 or 5 years ago. Yes, bonds have almost become "return-free risk." Giggle. They pay very little these days, with the global ZIRP being embraced by governments around the world. But the ballast in my boat feels comfortable. And I am still exposed to stocks: 42%. So I'm still grabbing SOME of the stock run-up. At this moment, Morningstar X-Ray tells me my profit will match the SP500 going out 5 years from now, in terms of projected earnings per share growth. And my projected YIELD over the same period, looking ahead five years, = 58% better than the SP500. I'm pleased. I keep in mind the words from the Springsteen song, "Badlands."
"Poor man wanna be rich,
Rich man wanna be king,
And the King ain't satisfied till he rules everything."
....Ya, that's NOT me. And that's OK. All there is left to do is to be thankful. If things go South, then I'm screwed. But there are some things I can do to mitigate that. Worrying about my portfolio vis-a-vis inflation is not a thing I can control very well. Although I recognize that inflated prices probably will show up in the share prices in the funds I own. :)

OSTIX started August 30, 2002. So it's been around for about 19 years. It was classified as a multisector fund for just over 11 of those years, and as a high yield fund for nearly the past 8 years. You describe the 11 years (or less) when you owned it (during which time M* classified it as multisector) as "many many years". While the 8 years since M* reclassified the fund are described as just "a few years".
As I said, people's perception of time is often nonlinear. Perceptions don't matter, though. What matters are the actual numbers. Nearly 8 years since reclassification. Long enough that it would be inappropriate to compare OSTIX with multisector funds even based on historical performance.
The fund's portfolio for many years did, as you said, strongly resemble its current portfolio. However, its earlier portfolios did not. In its early years, OSTIX was significantly more diversified.
As M* described the fund its Dec 2011 analysis, "The managers can and have bought convertible bonds, preferred stock, and floating-rate notes in the past, but currently--and for much of the past few years--the portfolio has focused on shorter-term high-yield corporate bonds."
Multisector funds typically are more diversified than high yield funds. As OSTIX became less diversified, it more closely resembled high yield funds. Hence the reclassification in 2013, albeit with a substantial lag.

I would consider this investing strategy if it was an etf;however, with $50 tf and 5k minimum investment,not at this time.