Link for the Quarterly call: Thursday 2 pm EST. for those who'd like to join.
https://info.crossingbridgefunds.com/fixed-income-market-update-10-23

The prices people actually pay
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/render?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20231017&first_send=0&instance_id=105431&nl=paul-krugman&paid_regi=1&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=147573&te=1&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1&uri=nyt://newsletter/4e6687ad-ec48-5b2d-9317-d1fb5847a915

+1 @Devo

Good question. I had a nice talk with Carl Kaufman, their CIO and co- CEO today. They're celebrating their 40th year in business and have been thinking a bit about what it will take to have 40 more. Some of the recent moves might be tied to that reflection.
The short version is that Osterweis has internal benchmarks and expectations for their strategies. For Total Return in particular, the expectation was that the strategy would be able to seriously outperform a broad Bar Cap Agg strategy in turbulent markets. 2022 was "eye-opening," since the hope was for much smaller losses than the market and maybe even a gain. As it turns out, the performance was purely mediocre. In addition, investors weren't beating on the doors to get it.
So Osterweis made a painful and principled decision: "I've been reading the book Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away lately. In 2012, we shut our hedge funds. Like them, this strategy had the promise, not the performance. It was time to react to reality. They're a really great team, but it is what it is and we did what we had to."
He observed that the Zeo case was sort of parallel, which is what led to the same decision there.
It struck me as principled and thoughtful, for what that's worth.

My takeaways from the article were:
1. Marks is forcing a conversation among asset allocators. He’s right.
2. He prefers credit. He’s right there but how do you get asset allocators to act. Questionable. Not easy to get people to move.
3. He says credit yield are high enough to for now ditch equities. Eventually once equities go down he expects equities to then once again be the right play because nominal earnings will be there tool to beat inflation. This makes sense.
4. The big problem with this is that these investments require a sense of sequencing and thus are frowned upon as market timing. Especially among the endowment crowd that he is trying to influence.
5. If you market time out of stocks and into credit how will you know it’s ok to get out. Committees don’t know this stuff. So they do nothing. And take the volatility.
6. Marks knows all this but his hands are tied. If he is helpful he needs to tell you to sequence. He is running against how institutions make decisions for asset allocation.
7. At least he has forced us to have a conversation and understand our weaknesses.

My "roadster" is a 2008 stick-shift Fit. Fun for driving around town. A little too bouncy on the freeway at higher speed.
My favorite driving experience was an ‘86 Ford Escort with “4 on the floor”. Just a 4-banger but fun to drive & maneuverable. Later I owned a 2013 Mustang with automatic / V6. A good looker, but less enjoyable driving. Ford had retarded the timing at lower RPM’s to boost EPA ratings. So the advertised 300+ HP didn’t even kick in until you reached a certain RPM. Really a dog off the line considering engine size.

I have to put in a plug for Honda vans which I have owned continuously since 1999. Way more capacity (i.e., 4x8 sheets of plywood) than an SUV, easy to get into, and no teenager or 20-something kid of mine has ever asked to take my car. As for Mom's Accord, another story. Come to think of it, they don't ask to take my stick-shift roadster, either.

It's the minvan that replaced the station wagon. SUV's never had the cargo capacity. They're just squared off sedans. We're closing in on 300K with our Odyssey. Carried all sorts of stuff in it besides kids and dogs.
My "roadster" is a 2008 stick-shift Fit. Fun for driving around town. A little too bouncy on the freeway at higher speed.

SUV.
Sink Unlimited Volumes of money into it.
My tiny white front-wheel drive Saturn 4-door went cross-country maybe three times. And I took it to British Columbia, too. Cassette Tape player. And A/C. Luxury model with automatic transmission. Almost 300k miles before it was donated to charity.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418923007621/osterweistotalreturn497eli.htm
497 1 osterweistotalreturn497eli.htm 497
OSTERWEIS TOTAL RETURN FUND – OSTRX
Supplement dated October 16, 2023
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated June 30, 2023
Osterweis Capital Management, LLC, the Adviser to the Osterweis Total Return Fund (the “Fund”), has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of Professionally Managed Portfolios has approved, a plan of liquidation and the termination of the Fund. This decision was made due to the Fund’s inability to obtain a level of assets necessary for it to be viable.
Effective with the close of business on October 16, the Fund will no longer accept purchases of new shares. The Fund will be closed to new purchases, whether from existing or new investors.
The liquidation of the Fund is expected to occur after the close of business on December 15, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”). Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will engage in business and activities for the purposes of winding down the Fund’s business affairs and reducing the Fund’s portfolio (to the extent practicable) to cash in preparation for the orderly liquidation and subsequent distribution of its assets on the Liquidation Date. During this transition period, the Fund will no longer be pursuing its investment objective or be managed consistent with its investment strategies as stated in the Prospectus. This is likely to impact Fund performance.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. The proceeds per share to be distributed to each remaining shareholder of record on the Liquidation Date will be the net asset value per share of the Fund less any required tax withholdings, after all expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or otherwise provided for. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the receipt of liquidation proceeds will generally be treated as a taxable event and may result in a gain or loss. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Fund may redeem or, subject to investment minimums and other applicable restrictions on exchanges, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of another Osterweis fund (if available) pursuant to the procedures set forth under “SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION—Exchange Privilege” in the Prospectus.
Any IRAs still invested in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will be redeemed and distributed using an age-based distribution code and may be subject to tax withholding. If you hold your shares in an IRA account directly with U.S. Bank, N.A., you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest your proceeds into another IRA account and maintain their tax-deferred status. Direct IRA shareholders wishing to avoid mandatory withholding taxes from being taken from their liquidation because they plan to roll over their proceeds to another IRA should submit a written redemption request to the Fund with enough time to be received prior to liquidation day. Any redemption request will be processed on the day received provided the request is in good order. Shareholders who own the Fund through a financial institution or brokerage should consult their financial advisor.
You may be subject to federal, state, local or foreign taxes on exchanges or redemptions of or liquidating distributions made on Fund shares. You should consult your tax advisor for information regarding all tax consequences applicable to your investment in the Fund.
Please contact the Fund at (866) 236-0050 or your financial advisor if you have questions or need assistance.
Please retain this supplement for your reference.
From Osterweis:
https://www.osterweis.com/files/Osterweis_Prospectus_2023.pdf

I dont remember when PRWCX closed but I could start a new position in ITCSX in an old VOYA retirement account I kept open in 10/2019, so ITCSX was open then.

I opened a small position in my IRA on June 16 of 2014, shortly after the coming closure was announced.

+1
Yes thanks to all here. I like Marks a lot. That said, ISTM he made his name analyzing / investing in distressed debt. So the tilt towards credit doesn’t surprise me. But Yuppers - I’d listen to him ahead of a lot of others. Nice summary @BaluBalu.

I dont remember when PRWCX closed but I could start a new position in ITCSX in an old VOYA retirement account I kept open in 10/2019, so ITCSX was open then.

@msf, good PV analyses.
For me, this started out as a broader mini-project in response to Vanguard's request to bring up several Admiral accounts for VG hybrid funds to min $50K - I posted on that. I have finally DUMPED all those hybrid funds, and some more VG hybrids, and REPLACED them with the ETFs at VG. I also wrote to VG about this that we weren't happy with its orders for our accounts that were within stone throws of Admiral min in the next rally, if/when it came. So, I told VG that it lost assets in VG funds, although that money remains in the VG Brokerage "for now".
Using TCAF + PYLD + USFR is just an example of what I did to approximate PRWCX. I investigated the general idea of creating broad and flexible portfolios with 3 ETFs and did some backtesting with PV too. This can be found in the link below. One may see this as a variation of the Bogleheads concept of using 2-4 funds but I find their use of total markets too constraining.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/512/portfolio-allocation-3-etfs

@msf and other, I want to draw your attention to market correlation in PV.
I added VFINX to your link (by adding a benchmark ticker).
Add VFINX
Your three portfolios have market correlation that range from 94% - 96%. This leads me to believe they are highly correlated to market (VFINX = 1.0%), yet their standard deviation as well as their Max DD appear to be about 2/3 less correlated to “the market”. Though VFINX deviated (deeper) during Max DD (15% vs 10%) they all took the same amount of time to heal from their losses. One can get this information by clicking on the “I” symbol next their respective MaxDD figures.
Over the long run (your charts timeframe is 8 years), if we can accepted the higher SD (the ups as well as the downs of VFINX) it appears we achieve market returns.
1991- 2023 Comparison:
VFINX, PRWCX, QGIEX, CSIEX
Most investors don’t enjoy losing money and appreciate losing less even though the timeframe for “shallow losses” and “deep losses” appears to be the same (at least in this chart).
PRWCX’s goal of providing market returns on the up side while losing less on the downside is an investor’s challenge as well. Hope it succeeds!

The M* ITCSX report (10/28/2022) indicates this fund has been closed to new investors since 2014.

Without logging into Morningstar, it shows ITCSX as open, that’s why I asked. But of course it is limited to only certain group and it is closed anyway.

@Jim0445,
If it would help you when you speak with TRP,
My employer 401(K) did not offer PRWCX but TRP allowed me to buy into PRWCX when I rolled over the 401(k) into a TRP IRA. Then I transferred PRWCX into non-TRP IRAs and added more.

Some fund companies will allow you to do a direct rollover into a closed fund even if you have to liquidate your employer-sponsored plan assets to do a rollover. (Having to liquidate for a rollover is not unusual.)
Try calling TRP and asking if they will allow you to do a rollover into a closed fund that you currently own in your 401(a).
When I closed my solo 401(k) held at TRP, I tried to get them to let me roll over into to a closed fund. At that time they did make exceptions for rollovers. But since I didn't hold shares in the closed fund in the 401(k), they wouldn't allow me to open a new position. In your situation where you already own the fund, they might.

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=7YbNGfKVXrFqHWqj0iKqUi
These combos have very close but slightly lower std dev than PRWCX (10.41% vs. 10.47 for PRWCX), very close but slightly lower Sharpe ratios (0.81 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.

Several years ago, my brokerage firm performed a "share class exchange" for me at no charge, through which I exchanged all of my shares of PRWCX into the institutional class TRAIX. Now, for the last year or two, this same brokerage firm says they cannot allow me to purchase new shares of TRAIX. So I'm frozen. I've called repeatedly, spoke to a "mutual fund trader," and have always gotten the same answer. I even asked to do another "share class exchange" to transfer some of the institutional class shares TRAIX into PRWCX but the answer I've consistently gotten is that "PRWCX is closed." The "mutual fund trader" stated that he contacted TR Price on my behalf but with no luck. This is frustrating. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can add to TRP Capital Appreciation fund (in either class)? This is a brokerage link account tied to a former employer's 401a plan.

TransUnion fined for reporting errors and misrepresentations/lying about credit locks and freezes.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-us-regulators-fine-credit-141314874.html