I have been following the various discussions about OSTIX on various investment forums (MFO, Armchair, Big Bang). I have done some additional due diligence on this fund recently, just to see if I have some renewed interest in possibly owning it. I have concluded that I am not interested in purchasing this fund. I simply can find better alternatives, that offers similar total return, with lower risk metrics. Just owning it because if offers "dedicated HY Bond" exposure, is not enough of a reason to own it for me. I own several bond oefs from the multisector and nontraditional bond categories, that offers significant exposure to HY bonds, and find no compelling reason to own it, just because it is a dedicated sector HY bond fund. So, I will pass on it.

Not sure, but your last comment appears to be in reference to fred495 who on Monday on armchairinvesting stated,
https://armchairinvesting.freeforums.net/thread/616/bond-oefs-2021?page=20
"As I said, I was drawn to OSTIX because of its consistent total return performance of between 5 and 6% over the past 3, 5, 10 and 15 years and its low duration. Additionally, I had no dedicated corporate HY bond exposure in my portfolio."
So fred's primary reason for owning is "its consistent total return performance" with his need/desire for HYB exposure as a secondary reason.

It is amazing that these FAANG stocks have been dominating the broader US stock index for the last 10 years. Few mutual funds managed to be competitive without holding one or more of the FAANG stocks. They are not consider bad but only from the sake of diversification perspective. Value and smaller cap stock funds have fewer exposure to FAANG stocks. BTW, is BRKB is Value stock ever though it holds 40% Apple stock?
M*'s X-ray tool reveals stock overlaps between funds and their percentages. I have not able to do that on M* site directly as in that past.

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/

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'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.

One type of Chinese tech stock got really killed yesterday, the companies offering after-school tutoring, the biggest of which is TAL. Declines of 65% were seen after the Party announced it might move to regulate or curtail such academic instruction. Korea went through the same type of educational reform quite a number of years ago. Wealthy families were paying exorbitant fees to tutors to help their kids get into college. In Japan and Korea, and possibly China, entrance to a university is the greatest hurdle. It is widely recognized that the quality of education in universities leaves something to be desired and that once admitted, students don’t have to work very hard to get a degree. The CCP can appear to be limiting elitism while at the same time taking control of companies that might not hew the Party line. Government intervention is mentioned as a risk factor in the prospective of EM funds, but this example is striking. I was expecting the Kristian Heugh managed funds, that have been big holders of the tutoring companies, to take a nosedive yesterday, but only MSAUX had an outsized loss of +4%.

I did not go back and see how long ago it was the OSTIX classification changed from the M* Multisector Bond category, to the M* High Yield Bond category. Instead of using the phrase "a couple of years ago", I should have used the phrase "a few years ago". I have not followed OSTIX since I sold it, but when I looked at it recently, because a poster friend purchased it, it strongly resembled what I use to own when it was classified as a Multisector Bond Oef.

Setting aside the question of whether the OP is asking a question worthy of our consideration, I get the sense that the person is tired of making decisions about his family’s finances. If so, I think the whole enchilada ought to be turned over to a financial advisor who could propose a hands-off portfolio, akin to a blind trust, taking the worry and decision making out of the hands of a person who wants to relax in the twilight years. I would not want to do that myself, but I have thought it would be the best arrangement for my wife if I go first, and I have told our advisor that.

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.

What stillers said.
OP --- silly question, silly answer, rich-enough couple writes in ... why? Mattress sale?
Otherwise clickbait --- nobody learns anything new, only confirmation of whatever.

I had to think about this - and I read YouTube comments, they are all cryptic - at best. Anyway, could this be real? They are 100% stocks & they are considering going to 0% stocks, 0% bonds & zero annuities. All Peter the Planner can offer is: “ Talk to a licensed professional about your options. But yes, you can absolutely stop subjecting your nest egg to investment markets.”
My response would be something along the lines of - taxable or tax deferred?
If taxable, minimize taxes to the extent possible while getting to 50/50 or 50/25/25. And yes, 100/0/0 is making all of us anxious (and we don’t even know you). But you could have a large chunk in Puritan or Wellington. And then a chunk in FADMX or some equivalent bond fund.
Between the 2 of you, you might need 10+ years of assisted living at $70k+ /year so don’t think you’ll never need that money.
All caveats apply.

I owned OSTIX for many many years, and M* chose to place it in the multisector bond category during those years, even though it held almost exclusively high yield bonds. ... During those years, its portfolio looks almost identical to what it holds today. However, a couple of years ago, M* chose to move OSTIX from the multisector bond category to the High Yield Bond category...

Perceptions of time are often nonlinear (elongated, compressed, etc.) It was further back, some time in the last couple of months of 2013 when M* moved OSTIX from the multisector bond (MU) category to the High Yield Bond (HY) category.
On the M* page below, click on the "Expanded View" tab to see all of the past ten years and how the fund was classified in each of those years.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=OSTIX
Fortunately, the Wayback Machine took a snapshot of the M* fund portfolio page as of Oct 31, 2013. The portfolio data on that page is dated Sept 30, 2013. It shows that the last time OSTIX was placed in the multisector bond category, an eighth of the bonds were rated AAA. IMHO that's not a portfolio that's "almost exclusively high yield bonds".
By the same token, that strikes me as a significant difference from today's portfolio, where only 2.35% of the bonds are investment grade, and none above BBB.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=OSTIX&region=usa&culture=en-US
I'm not very familiar with this fund, so all I'll say about the strategy (having just looked at a few snapshots over time and read the strategy section of its prospectus) is that I'm inclined to agree that its strategy hasn't changed over time. But ... that strategy may led it to begin investing "almost exclusively [in] high yield bonds" some time after the stock market took off post GFC. Same strategy, changed market conditions, changed classification.

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

Anyone who has ever invested in FI CEFs or knows of their inherent volatility understands that they carry a risk level commensurate with stocks.
Dick and other LT M* FI CEF Forum posters provided me (and many others) with a paint-by-numbers strategy for making profitable FI CEF trades. I traded them for about 2-3 years under their guidance with very good success, but ceased trading them after one too many violent, out-of-left-field price movement shocks to my system.
100% bond OEF Investors seem more than capable of justifying TO THEMSELVES that their strategy is a worthy one. Using Dick as an example though is one of the more creative ones, but does little to convince me that what they're doing remotely resembles "smart" investing.

Everyone is different. The "bucket" approach has alot of followers, although it is hard to track down M* Christine Benz's original articles anymore.
Still, from a purely intellectual basis, it makes sense to set up priorities
1) Money to live on. The amount you keep in cash depends on how much you want to be able to spend and how necessary it is, but it's purpose to to keep you from selling equities at a market bottom.
Then you have to decide how long the bottom will last. Using the longest bear market since my college years, 3/24/2000, it took seven years for the SP500 to recover.
1/11/1973 to 7/16/1980 was 7.5 years.
So I think five years may not be enough, although if interest rates were higher, you could count on replenishing this account with dividends and interest.
2) Everything else ie equities

I owned OSTIX for many many years, and M* chose to place it in the multisector bond category during those years, even though it held almost exclusively high yield bonds. Supposedly, the reason from M* had to do with its prospectus statements about flexibility to invest in a wide variety of assets, besides High Yield Bonds. During those years, its portfolio looks almost identical to what it holds today. However, a couple of years ago, M* chose to move OSTIX from the multisector bond category to the High Yield Bond category, even though it continues its same basic investing strategy, as it historically has used.

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

You might want to explain what you mean by "just as great in its own right." It must include metrics beyond TR but I'm not seeing how any other metrics could cause someone to see these two HYB funds as "equally great."
TR 1yr, 3 yr, 5yr, Life
DHHIX: 17.3%, 10.6%, 10.3%, 9.1%
LFLAX: 5.6%, 7.0%, 5.9%, 6.2%

LFLAX is not a HY fund. It's a multisector bond fund. Compare it to its category and you will better understand my comment.

Oh, my bad. As the thread is about OSTIX, a HYB fund, I guess I incorrectly assumed that any comparisons/suggestions would be HYB funds.

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

You might want to explain what you mean by "just as great in its own right." It must include metrics beyond TR but I'm not seeing how any other metrics could cause someone to see these two HYB funds as "equally great."
TR 1yr, 3 yr, 5yr, Life
DHHIX: 17.3%, 10.6%, 10.3%, 9.1%
LFLAX: 5.6%, 7.0%, 5.9%, 6.2%

LFLAX is not a HY fund. It's a multisector bond fund. Compare it to its category and you will better understand my comment.

Though VWELX may be wandering into LB now, but that is not something it did regularly in the past. It was a solid LV balanced fund for a long time, at least since I started watching it from 2005. The trend of Value managers buying growth stocks (making the fund LB) is something that has become common in the last 10 years or so. There are many value managers doing that now. One that comes to my mind is Bill Nygren of Oakmark. These managers are following Buffet's mantra (I believe it was Charlie Munger who convinced him to do that)
“It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.” – Warren Buffett