From the PR:
Multi-Sector Income Bond will offer exposure primarily to U.S. investment-grade securities, U.S. high-yield corporate securities, and emerging markets debt of all credit quality ratings.
This mirrors the prospectus text:
the Fund will invest at least 80% of its assets in bonds, which include fixed income securities such as corporate bonds; emerging market bonds; and U.S. Treasury obligations and other U.S. government and agency securities.
Conspicuous by its absence is foreign developed market debt. While many multisector funds have rotated out of developed markets in the past several years, there's still a difference between avoiding developed market debt because of market conditions and doing that as a matter of policy.
In contrast, PIIDX's prospectus reads:
“Fixed Income Instruments” include bonds, debt securities and other similar instruments issued by various U.S. and non-U.S. public- or private-sector entities.
Its portfolio's top three countries are currently the US (62.59%), Germany (3.43%), and the UK (3.42%), per M*.
Admittedly 1/6 of its foreign holdings is not a lot, but that could change. Back in 2015, its top ten countries were the US (52.57%), UK (8.96%), Luxembourg (4.62%), Netherlands (4.45%), France (3.51%), Indonesia (2.99%), Ireland (2.86%), Switzerland (2.80%), Italy (2.62%), and the Cayman Islands (1.65%).
The Vanguard fund doesn't appear to have this degree of global flexibility.

https://pressroom.vanguard.com/news/Press-Release-Vanguard-Announces-Plans-to-Launch-Two-New-Active-Bond-Funds-072921.html
(includes Wellington reopen to third party intermediaries)

+1

I started a position in ATPAX at Vanguard (ntf, $1,000 minimum) For me the fund seems to have similar risk characteristics to OSTIX with the advantage of being sold ntf.

If you're not expecting to hold for an extended period of time, and you're investing relatively small amounts, that could make sense. Though you'll have to hold for 60 days at Vanguard to avoid a $50 redemption fee.
If one is investing say $10K, and plans to hold for a bit more than a year, then OSTIX winds up being cheaper. It costs $40 (or less) per round trip. But with an ER of 0.88% vs. 1.22% for ATPAX, the 0.34% difference in ER saves about $34/year. One breaks even after about 14 months.
Another alternative if one is planning to hold for a couple of years is to invest in ATPYX instead of ATPAX. It comes with a transaction fee ($40 round trip), but its ER is 1.02% vs 1.22 for ATPAX (including a 0.20% 12b-1 fee). On a $10K investment, the lower ER saves about $20/year, so in about two years one breaks even.

FWIW, Zack's summary on OSTIX, with the last excerpted statement perhaps being the most important:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ostix-strong-bond-fund-now-110011455.html

It might be, if the text in Zacks' column preceding the excerpted conclusion had demonstrated clear thinking or basic understanding of metrics.

OSTIX carries a beta of 0.21, meaning that the fund is less volatile than a broad market index of fixed income securities.

Given that the R² of OSTIX with respect to a broad market index of fixed income securities is virtually zero (0.02 as of June 30), the reported beta means nothing.

a lower cost product will likely outperform its otherwise identical counterpart, all things being equal.

Given two funds identical aside from cost, is the cheaper fund really only likely to outperform the more expensive one? Under what conditions, all things being equal, might the higher cost product outperform?
For that matter, how do you have two funds otherwise identical (aside from cost), where all things are not equal?

In terms of fees, OSTIX is a no load fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.86% compared to the category average of 0.85%. OSTIX is actually more expensive than its peers when you consider factors like cost.

It appears that Zacks is equating how expensive a fund is solely with its ER. Otherwise it would note that since some other funds have loads, OSTIX is less expensive than (many of) its peers, all in, when you consider operating costs (ER) and purchase costs (loads).
Or maybe not. Zacks does allude to other factors aside from cost that affect how expensive a fund is. What could those be?
None of this refutes (or confirms) Zacks' claim that OSTIX "looks like a somewhat average choice". I merely suggest that Zacks could use a better set of bifocals when it describes what it sees.

As an aside, FPNIX (for some reason) is still open to new investors at Vanguard, $1500 minimum, tf status.

I started a position in ATPAX at Vanguard (ntf, $1,000 minimum) For me the fund seems to have similar risk characteristics to OSTIX with the advantage of being sold ntf.

A fund company is not the same thing as a management company. A fund company is a brand, a distributor. A management company is, well, a company that manages investments. Saying that Vanguard has "a good HY bond fund" (managed by Wellington) means one is referring to the Vanguard brand, not Vanguard as a management company.
Vanguard often hires outside firms to handle its actively managed funds. Vanguard likely erred in trying to handle its alternative investments funds (VASFX and VMNIX) in house. And as I stated above, I would have preferred that it had outsourced these new funds. Still, that's an issue I have with the management company selected, not with Vanguard as a fund company.
Likewise, when thinking about buy and hold, there's what the investor does and what the fund manager does. As a buy and hold investor, I invest in funds that I expect to do well over the long term. That's different from the funds themselves "trying to get average performance with minimal trading, minimal adjusting of fund portfolios". The Vanguard Primecap-advised funds VPMCX and VHCOX have active share percentages of 71% and 93% respectively.
As @Observant1 noted, the remark was about Vanguard generally as opposed to its bond funds. So this comment is likewise broad. Vanguard outsources for example to PGIM Jennison, but not on the fixed income side. Perhaps it should.
In the meantime, do you have comments regarding the in-house managed VGCAX? That fund seems particularly relevant to the new multisector fund, because of its scope (global, low rated corporates) and because it shares two managers with the new fund.
Vanguard typically hedges currency in its global/international bond funds. It's going to do the same thing with this fund. Since I don't view multisector funds as stabilizers, I prefer my funds straight up, no hedging. YMMV.

AMZN could go down a long way without it being its demise. The stock has a market cap of $1.7 trillion and a forward p/e of 56. Let’s say it fell 2/3 or 66%. That would give it a closer to normal p/e of almost 19 and a still sizable market cap of $570 billion.

Hi @PopTart
Medical Tech. continues to be a yes at this house, too; and is 19% of our equity holdings.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Regards,
Catch

Here you go ...
Impromptu MFO Premium Zoom Meeting Video - 20Jul21
It was fun! Thank you all.

Wow. Thank you Shadow.
That's a big deal.
Wonder if it's because this biz cycle, since Jan 2020, it's only done OK versus peers, likely impacting AUM (but I have not checked that)?

The Short ARKK ETF would seek to track the inverse performance of the $23 billion Ark Innovation ETF (ticker ARKK) -- the largest fund in Ark Investment Management’s lineup -- through swaps contracts
The fund would trade under the ticker SARK and charge a 0.75% operating expense, in line with ARKK’s fee.

Anti-Ark ETF

I see little reason to be nibbling at AMZN at this time other than it's down a bit. Nothing in the charts say that it's moving higher, in fact the opposite. I can wait.

Agreed, technicals don't look so good right now.
BUT...12-month price targets were only lowered mildy by some, and most are still in the 4,300 to 4,700 range, or about a 35% gain from today's close.
As they say, bells aren't rung at market (or individual stock) tops or bottoms. While you're apparently eagerly awaiting an interim bottom, I bought an extra slice of AMZN DOWN over 8% from Wednesday's close.

I seldom had issues or questions where I needed to contact Vanguard.
However, I did contact Vanguard several times via Message Center when I did have a question.
If an immediate response is not required, Message Center is an efficient communication tool since you won't waste time on the phone. It's a shame it will be discontinued!
Several Vanguard customer service problems were noted in the November 2019 issue of
The Independent Advisor for Vanguard Investors newsletter:
• Computer took money from clients' accounts without their permission
• Some investors unable to wire money from other brokers
• Two-factor authentication issues
• October email that 1099 tax forms were finally available (obtainable since February)
Dan Wiener (newsletter editor) spoke to a Vanguard insider who suggested that the company's broad use of outside contractors may be a large part of the problem. IIRC, Mr. Wiener personally owns at least one share of every non-institutional Vanguard fund to stay on top of things.
I seriously doubt he would transfer his assets elsewhere while he is the newsletter editor.

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.

Here is PK elaboration today (not specifically limited to debt-GDP ratio), w some repetition:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20210730&instance_id=36716&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=64949&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/941f0821-7bf6-5958-9983-b7d705bb93fa&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

I'd say the current skew is more growth based on its current Top 10...
Month-end ten largest holdings
as of 06/30/2021
Alphabet Inc.
Microsoft Corp.
Facebook Inc.
Charles Schwab Corp.
Apple Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
McDonald's Corp.
Amazon.com Inc.
Home Depot Inc.
Procter & Gamble Co.