FPA New Income Fund (the “Fund”) returned -1.46% in the third quarter of 2026.

Treasury yields increased approximately 60-90 bps across the yield curve over the past few months, leaving yields approximately 80-150 bps higher year-to-date. High yield spreads increased during the quarter, led by an increase in spread for the lowest-rated debt. As an indicator of the core of the high yield market, spreads on BB-rated debt, excluding energy increased from historically low levels at the end of the second quarter but remain low by historical standards. By comparison, spreads on investment grade debt were generally little changed during the quarter, leaving many parts of that market near historically expensive territory. We seek to opportunistically invest in Credit when we believe prices adequately compensate for the risk of permanent impairment of capital and near-term mark-to-market risk. We did not find attractively priced Credit (investments rated BBB or lower) for the Fund during the quarter. Due to low spreads, we focused on buying longer-duration, High Quality bonds (rated single-A or higher) that we believe will enhance both the Fund’s long-term returns and short-term upside-versus-downside return profile.

  • Extended the duration of the existing Treasury holdings, including buying 7-year maturity Treasuries.
  • Added to an existing position in 5-year maturity Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS”).
  • Bought High Quality bonds with a weighted average life and duration of 5.1 years and 4.4 years. Meaningful7 investments included:
    • Agency mortgage pools
    • Asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by prime auto loans
    • Agency collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs)
    • ABS backed by equipment
    • Investment grade corporate bonds

Please see our Q2 2026 commentary8 for a description of our TIPS investment. In short, we are not using TIPS to express a view on inflation; we have no view. Rather, at the real yields at which we bought TIPS, we believe TIPS offer an attractive short- and long-term return across a range of future inflation rates.

We did not make any Credit investments during the quarter.

The increase in market yields caused bond prices to decline over the past few months, with the magnitude of the decline driven by the duration of the bonds in question. The Fund was not immune to this decline and, with a longer than average duration, it was affected more than the average short-term bond fund. Importantly, the price of the Fund has not declined because of a permanent impairment of capital. The Fund has relatively little credit risk. Rather, the price of the Fund has declined because of short-term mark-to-market changes in price. We are not surprised by this result. In fact, it is part of the bargain we make as we invest in longer duration bonds. We believe we could hold the Fund’s investments to maturity and the price declines would be recouped over time. However, we also believe that would not be the long-term return-maximizing course of action.

As a reminder, we do not have a macroeconomic forecast that guides our investment decisions. Making high-conviction interest rate forecasts is challenging under “normal” circumstances, and all bets are off when there are unexpected exogenous events like wars or changes in policy that affect the economy. Instead, valuation guides our investment decisions. With respect to duration, we define value using our duration test, which seeks to identify the longest duration bonds we believe will produce at least a breakeven return over twelve months, assuming yields increase by 100 bps over that period. We illustrate the test below:

The dark blue bars in the chart above represent the Treasury yield curve as of September 30. The light blue bars represent our “downside” scenario with respect to interest rate risk and estimate the 12-month total return for each Treasury maturity assuming yields increase by 100 bps over twelve months. The yellow bars represent our “upside” scenario and estimate the 12-month total return for each Treasury maturity assuming yields decrease by 100 bps over twelve months.

The objective of our duration test is to deliver our investors a consistent ability to preserve capital against a short-term increase in yields which we define as a 100 bps increase in yields over a rolling 12-month period. To be clear, we do not seek to defend the portfolio from all increases in yields, we make no assumptions about changes in the shape of the yield curve, and we do not seek to defend the portfolio against rate moves that happen over periods of less than a year. We chose 100 bps as our threshold because it covers the majority, but certainly not all, of the historical 12-month changes in yields for 2-10 year maturity Treasuries. As such, the relevant period for the Fund’s short-term return is the last twelve months’ return. Although the Fund produced a negative return this past quarter, the Fund produced a positive return over the past twelve months, despite yields increasing by up to 138 bps over the past year – more than our 100 bps threshold.

We meet with a number of our investors on a recurring basis as part of their ongoing due diligence. During those meetings, we are often asked whether our investment philosophy has changed. Rest assured it has not –  and has not changed in decades – but our execution of that philosophy can and has changed as markets change. Our duration management is a good example of the application of the same philosophy resulting in different outcomes. Indeed, so consistent is our investment philosophy that we can repeat today what we wrote in Q2 2023, the last time rates rose toward today’s levels:

On an absolute basis, we find longer-duration, High Quality bonds attractive for two reasons:

First, we believe that over the long term, investors will benefit from growing their capital at today’s yields for multiple years. One might wonder whether it makes more sense to hold cash or very short-duration bonds instead of longer-duration bonds. If we knew rates will rise further and the timing and magnitude of that increase, then certainly holding onto cash or very short-duration bonds would make a lot of sense. However, we don’t believe we can know such things with a high level of conviction. Therefore, we believe it makes sense to take advantage of yields available today. Thinking about the opportunity cost of this decision helps elucidate the rationale: if yields were to decline by 25 basis points (or 50 basis points, or some other large amount) we believe investors would regret not buying bonds at today’s yields when they had the chance.

Second, we believe longer-duration High Quality bonds offer a more attractive short-term return profile. Bond prices can, of course, move between today and a bond’s maturity so we want to be mindful of duration risk and short-term returns. Employing the duration test described earlier, if yields in the short term were to increase by 100 bps over the next 12 months, we believe these longer-duration investments would produce at least a breakeven return, limit short-term drawdowns, and preserve capital we could then seek to redeploy into higher-yielding investments. Alternatively, if yields were to decline for any reason, longer-duration investments we believe would meaningfully improve the Fund’s short-term total return…we believe longer-duration bonds at today’s yields have a more attractive asymmetry in their short-term upside versus downside return while also locking in an attractive yield (on an absolute basis) for the long term.

We feel the same way today. For most of 2026, five-year maturity bonds were the focus of our duration test because it was the longest maturity that produced at least a breakeven return in our rising interest rate scenario; maturities longer than five years generally produced an expected short-term loss under our duration test. For example, at December 31, 2025, our duration test showed that the 5-year Treasury could produce a downside return of 0.12% and upside return of 7.49%. Due to the increase in yields over the past nine months, at September 30, the 7-year Treasury could produce a similar downside return of 0.24% but with an upside return potential of 10.45%, an approximately 300 bps increase in upside return versus the 5-year Treasury at December 31, 2025!9 When rates increase, the return asymmetry on longer duration bonds improves, which we find attractive.

Disciplined risk management can leave investors well-positioned to take advantage of the investment opportunities created by a higher yield environment: we took advantage of the increase in yields during the quarter to buy 7-year maturity Treasuries and other longer-duration investments that now pass our duration test. We may continue to make similar investments in the coming quarters to the extent we can continue to buy longer-duration investments at yields that pass our test, subject to keeping the Fund’s overall duration within the boundaries of the Morningstar Short-duration Bond Category (loosely defined as 1.4 years to 4.3 years as of September 30). In doing so, we believe we can retain the Fund’s protection against a 100 bps increase in yields while improving the Fund’s short- and long-term return profile.

We could choose not to take advantage of lower prices and instead maintain a relatively consistent duration at all times, regardless of the level of interest rates, as do other fixed income funds, particularly those that track an index. We are not bound by such constraints and the limits they place on producing attractive risk-adjusted returns over the long-term. We believe that active management should avail itself of cheaper markets to enhance the Fund’s risk versus reward, and we believe our duration management process is a means to that end.

Looking forward, we recognize that it can be uncomfortable to buy as prices are falling. We are investors in the Fund, so we feel the discomfort firsthand, but we also know that without risk there can be no reward. To help focus our decision-making, we consider the alternative to high yields: low yields. The path to generating high absolute returns in fixed income over the long term is not paved with low yields. We think back to late February of this year, when the 5-year Treasury was trading at a 3.50% yield and we were concerned that our days of buying attractive yield in longer-duration bonds were numbered. We had more angst then than we do today even though yields have increased meaningfully since February. The reasons for that increase are subject to debate. Some reasons are positive – a stronger economy – and some are concerning – war, fiscal concerns, and inflation, to name a few. Regardless, we much prefer a cheaper market versus a more expensive market, and we much prefer a world where we and our investors can earn higher returns. When yields increase, one should be more excited, not less.10 While our investment approach may not produce the greatest returns every year, over the long-term, consistent execution of the same investment philosophy has resulted in a greater total and risk-adjusted return than short duration indices, the typical short-term bond or the Aggregate Bond Index. Though past performance is no guarantee of future results, we employ a similar playbook today.


Elsewhere, as shown below, though spreads in lower-rated debt increased during the quarter, they remain relatively low by historical standards.

In closing, we reference our Q4 2023 commentary12, in which we said the following:

2023 was just one mile in a marathon…. The Fund was a top performer in 2023, which is great but was not the objective; rather it was a by-product of our investment approach. Much like the fable of the tortoise and the hare, slow and steady wins the race. The Fund may not win each mile of the marathon, but over the past ten years the Fund’s performance has placed near the head of the pack.

Likewise, 2026 will be just one mile in a marathon. Our goal is not to win every mile but to be in the lead over the long-term.

Thank you for your confidence and continued support.