Trailing Performance (%)
As of June 30, 2025Since Inception*5 Yr3 Yr1 YrYTDQTD
FPA Flexible Fixed Income (FPFIX)3.943.986.157.114.161.76
Bloomberg U.S. Universal2.05-0.153.286.514.101.40
CPI + 2005.866.684.974.742.241.09

Dear Shareholder:

FPA Flexible Fixed Income Fund (the “Fund”) returned 1.76% in the second quarter of 2025.

Yield-to-worst14.63%
Effective Duration3.52 years
Spread Duration2.69 years
High Quality Exposure292%
Credit Exposure38%

On April 2nd, the federal government announced historically high levels of tariffs on dozens of trade partners. That announcement and a subsequent series of escalating, retaliatory tariffs and associated rhetoric led to a significant increase in interest rate volatility and an increase in credit spreads. However, following an April 9th announcement of a pause on tariffs, interest rate volatility subsided and spreads largely decreased below pre-tariff levels. During the quarter, the Federal Reserve left the Fed Funds rate unchanged at two separate meetings and cited uncertainty around tariffs’ impact on inflation as a reason to hold steady.4 Treasury yields declined by 5 to 20 bps for maturities up to seven years and increased for longer maturities. Despite a couple of Credit investments during the quarter, we generally did not view Credit (BBB or lower) as attractively priced. Most activity focused on buying longer-duration, High Quality bonds (single-A or higher) to enhance long-term returns and the portfolio’s short-term upside-versus-downside profile. Credit exposure decreased to 7.5% on June 30, 2025 (8.3% on March 31, 2025). Cash and equivalents were 5.6% (9.2% on March 31, 2025).

Contributors and Detractors (Q2 2025)
Top ContributorsNotable Drivers of Performance
Agency mortgage poolsPrice increase due to lower benchmark yields; interest income; and
amortization of principal
TreasuriesInterest income and price increase due to lower benchmark yields
Agency-guaranteed CMBSPrice increase due to lower benchmark yields and interest income

Top Detractors: Although certain individual bonds detracted, there were no meaningful detractors at the sector level.


Portfolio Activity7

The table below shows the portfolio’s exposures as of June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025: 

Sector Exposure (% of portfolio)6/30/253/31/25
ABS20.522.0
CLO3.34.2
Corporate4.03.9
Agency CMBS10.010.5
Non-Agency CMBS5.35.4
Agency RMBS24.020.0
Non-Agency RMBS7.65.1
Stripped Mortgage-backed0.10.1
U.S. Treasury19.619.5
Cash & equivalents5.69.2
Total100.0100.0
Characteristics6/30/253/31/25
Yield-to-worst84.63%4.78%
Effective Duration3.52 yrs3.32 yrs
Spread Duration2.69 yrs2.56 yrs
Average Life4.02 yrs3.87 yrs

Consistent with our desire to add duration and reduce exposure to investments we believe are prone to wider spreads, during the second quarter, we bought fixed-rate, High Quality bonds including agency-guaranteed residential mortgage pools, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), Treasuries, bonds backed by single-family rental properties9 and non-agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). These investments had a weighted average life of 6.1 years and a weighted average duration of 5.3 years. 

During the quarter, we made two new high yield bond investments. As discussed below, although we found that the market turbulence in early April did not create many attractive investment opportunities, we did find an opportunity to buy a bond that we had previously researched and was in our library of ideas, waiting for an attractive entry point. Later in the quarter, we bought another high yield bond that was offered at an attractive price for reasons unrelated to tariffs. These Credit investments were offset by repayments of existing investments, resulting in a net decrease in the Fund’s Credit exposure during the quarter. 

To manage exposures, we sold High Quality bonds backed by single-family rental properties with an average life and duration of 3.5 years and 3.3 years, respectively.

Observations 

On April 2nd, the federal government announced significant tariffs on imports into the United States that initially increased the effective tariff rate on US imports to levels not seen since the 1930s. Driven by uncertainty created by a subsequent series of escalating, retaliatory tariffs and associated rhetoric, interest rate volatility increased significantly and credit spreads increased. A 90-day pause on tariffs announced on April 9th drove a subsequent reduction in volatility and decline in spreads.

The chart below shows the increase in interest rate volatility after the April 2nd tariff announcement, followed by a return to the relative calm of pre-tariff days 

MOVE Index

The chart below shows the change in interest rates during the quarter:

U.S. Treasury Yield Curve
Maturity
1Y2Y3Y5Y7Y10Y20Y30Y
Change in yield (bps) during Q2 2025-5-16-19-15-821820
Change in yield (bps) year-to-date-18-52-58-59-49-34-8-1

Though rates settled lower over the quarter, the yield curves shown above belie the volatility over the prior three months. To provide a sense of the increase in volatility, interest rates typically change by single digit basis points from day to day; however, the seven days between April 2nd and April 9th saw multiple days where rates changed by 10-30 bps in either direction.

In the week following April 2nd, spreads on investment grade and high yield debt increased significantly before returning to pre-tariff levels and, in some cases, declining further. The chart below shows the spread on the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. Spreads on this index increased from 47 bps before the tariff announcement to a high of 56 bps just before the announcement of the pause. At 56 bps, the spread resided at the 16th percentile of the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index’s available history (a lower percentile suggests a more expensive market). Between April 2nd and April 9th, the “risk” components of the Aggregate Bond Index (i.e., bonds other than Treasuries) increased in spread by 7-10 bps. After April 9th, spreads decreased. At June 30th, the spread on the Aggregate Bond index was 46 bps, representing the 2nd percentile.

Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index

The next chart shows the spread on the BB component of the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate High Yield Index, excluding energy. We find this measure of the high yield market to be a better indicator of historical pricing in the high yield market because it removes some of the distortions associated with changes in the composition of the overall high yield index. Between April 2nd and April 9th, spreads on these BB-rated bonds reached a peak of 317 bps, representing the 69th percentile of the available history. For reference, the spread on the overall high yield index reached a peak of 476 bps during that time, representing the 48th percentile. At June 30th, the spread on the BB index, excluding energy, was 199 bps and the spread on the overall high yield was 323 bps, both representing the 6th percentile of their respective histories.

Bloomberg U.S. Corporate High Yield Index

Judging only by the spread, for a brief moment in early April the high yield market looked like it was abnormally cheap, or at least fairly priced. However, higher uncertainty demands a higher expected return and lower uncertainty earns a lower expected return. That’s why Treasuries trade at lower yields than other bonds that are not “risk-free.” Consistent with that framework, we recall our comments on tariffs in our first quarter commentary10:

“Deploying capital is always difficult because returns are always uncertain, but those returns have become even more uncertain because there is an additional cost looming from tariffs, and the magnitude of that cost and who will pay it are unclear. In addition, tariffs create additional uncertainty with respect to future economic growth and inflation and how the Federal Reserve will respond. Finally, there are now questions about the U.S. Dollar’s status as a reserve currency and the safety of U.S. assets, including Treasuries.

The prices of many investments have declined, but that does not necessarily make them cheaper. For example, if the price of a business that is 100% reliant on imports from China decreases, has the price of that business become cheaper or is it not cheap enough? That question may be easier to answer once there is clarity on trade policy. This example serves to highlight why we will not attempt to ‘buy the dip.’ It is certainly possible that there will be an announcement of good news from the federal government tomorrow that spurs bond prices higher, and those who ‘bought the dip’ might be rewarded. But were those gamblers smart or lucky? We would not be good stewards of your capital if we invested merely hoping that things turn out well. Hope is not a good investment strategy, especially when investing in debt, because debt has an asymmetric return profile with limited upside and 100% downside.”

With that philosophy in mind, we did not generally find compelling Credit investments for the Fund during the tariff-induced market turmoil. Having said that, during that period in early April we made an investment in a high yield bond that we had previously researched. After refreshing our underwriting following the announcement of tariffs, we were able to buy that bond at a price that we felt offered an attractive return for the risk. 

Remarkably, since April 9th, spreads continued to decrease even though tariff-related uncertainty has not subsided. As of the date of this letter, we still do not have clarity on the level of tariffs and who will bear them, and yet spreads are near all-time lows. It’s as if the market is making a leap of faith that all will be well. Our investors will not be surprised to hear that we cannot make that leap. Though market prices would suggest otherwise, uncertainty abounds. Due to the asymmetric return profile of debt investments, there’s no winning in bonds; there’s just not losing. Uncertainty increases the odds of mark-to-market losses and/or permanent impairment of capital and we find that current spreads generally do not compensate us for such uncertainty. 

Bill Belichik, regarded by many as one of the greatest coaches in NFL history, wrote in his book11:

“People focus on the fact that we developed a new defensive game plan [for each game], but they forget that we also developed a new game plan against every team we played. We were following the same process that brought us there, but that didn’t mean doing the same things: Our consistent process also included consistently adapting.”

Likewise, our investment approach is predicated on consistently applying the same process to every market and adapting our investment activity based on the results of that process. With respect to Credit, we are happy to invest when we are compensated for uncertain outcomes. Until then, we adapt to an expensive market for credit risk by taking less credit risk.

Similarly, though interest rate volatility has subsided, there remains considerable uncertainty with respect to the impact of tariffs, fiscal policy, immigration, etc. on inflation, economic growth and the strength of government finances. Even if we knew where tariff policy will settle, in combination with other policies from the administration and attempts to replace leadership of the Federal Reserve, we cannot know with conviction the future path of interest rates. This stance is entirely consistent with our investment approach – we do not believe it is ever possible to know with certainty the future path of interest rates. Today’s heightened uncertainty only adds to that challenge. Yet the inability to accurately forecast rates does not preclude us from taking duration risk. As we are happy to own Credit when we are compensated for the uncertainty, so are we also happy to own duration when we are compensated for interest rate uncertainty.

We assess whether we are compensated for interest rate uncertainty by utilizing our 100 bps duration test which seeks to identify the longest-duration bonds we expect will produce at least a breakeven return over a 12-month period, assuming a bond’s yield will increase by 00 bps during that period. The chart below illustrates our duration test. 

Hypothetical 12-month U.S. Treasury Returns

The dark blue bars above show Treasury yields of various maturities on June 30, 2025. The green bars indicate the results of our 100 bps duration test and represent the potential short-term downside return for these bonds in a rising interest rate environment. For example, the 5-year Treasury purchased at a 3.80% yield was expected to return 0.20% over twelve months if its yield increased by 100 bps from 3.80% to 4.80% during that time. Because the expected short-term downside return was positive, the 5-year Treasury was a candidate for our portfolio. The 7-year Treasury was not a candidate for our portfolio at that time because it produced an expected short-term loss. All things being equal, we sought investments with a duration between that of the 5-year Treasury and 7-year Treasury, where we expected a bond to breakeven under our test.

Of course, interest rates could decline. The light blue bars on the chart above indicate the short-term upside return potential, namely the potential total return over twelve months if rates decreased by 100 bps. In the example above, the 5-year Treasury offered a potential 12-month total return of 7.56%.

U.S. Treasury Yields

The longer duration bonds identified by our duration test these days have some ability to preserve capital in a rising rate environment while also potentially offering a meaningful positive short-term return if rates decrease. We find this short-term upside versus downside attractive in an uncertain world. Over a longer horizon, we further find it appealing to lock in today’s generationally high yields (shown above) for multiple years knowing that the capital deployed into these investments could be preserved if rates rise by 100 bps or less, thereby providing an opportunity to redeploy unimpaired capital into better opportunities in the future. In summary, we believe that longer-duration bonds offer multiple paths to attractive, risk-adjusted returns.

Returns over the past twelve months and longer exemplify the value of our investment approach and the upside versus downside we’ve been building into the portfolio. Specifically, as shown below, over the last twelve months in which not only rates decreased by 15 to 115 bps across 1-10 year maturity Treasuries but also in which volatility was heightened, the Fund produced a higher total return than the longer duration Bloomberg Universal Bond Index but with a smaller drawdown. Evidencing the multiple paths to attractive, risk-adjusted returns, the table below demonstrates that over longer time periods our approach has compounded capital at a better rate than the overall market with smaller drawdowns along the way. 

Upside vs. Downside (%): Return and Drawdown
FPA Flexible Fixed IncomeBloomberg U.S. Universal
1-year return ending 6/30/257.116.51
Max drawdown during the 1-year ending 6/30/25-1.38-2.73
3-year return ending 6/30/256.153.28
Max drawdown during the 3-year ending 6/30/25-1.71-7.82
5-year return ending 6/30/253.98-0.15
Max drawdown during the 5-year ending 6/30/25-3.91-16.76


With that said, as we search for longer duration investments, we find even in High Quality debt that low spreads offer inadequate compensation for mark-to-market risk associated with a return to normal spreads and, in some cases, offer inadequate compensation for credit risk and/or liquidity. Consequently, unlike past years when wider spreads led us to invest across many parts of the bond market, our investments in longer duration bonds these days have been directed toward debt that is higher quality and relatively more liquid. Once again, this approach represents a consistent process even though we are not doing the same things we’ve done in the past.

Coach Belichick further wrote “Big moments are won by winning all the small moments that come before them. We won our first Patriots Super Bowl in 00 in part because we didn’t do anything we hadn’t done before….” eplace “Super Bowl” with “attractive long-term risk-adjusted returns” and you have the philosophy we have long espoused. In an expensive market, it is tempting to take on risk in a reach for more return. We choose not to make a leap of faith that all will be well, so we are taking less credit risk – a small moment that we believe will pay off in big moments later. 

Thank you for your confidence and continued support.

Abhijeet Patwardhan
Portfolio Manager
July 2025