@msf - great comments; thanks. I checked my RPHYX statement last night, and it confirms what you've stated.
I made a simple calculation when I sold some RPHYX and went to T-Bills; I looked at the average return of RPHYX over the past several years (for sake of argument, let's call it 2.4%) and also looked at the downturn RPHYX had at some point last year (don't recall when exactly, but I think it approached 2%), and decided to sell most of my RPHYX and buy 3-month treasures at my broker.
Another consideration was the need for liquidity (I am expecting needing cash within the next 6 months, didn't want to have to sell any RPHYX at a 2% loss, for example), and the ability to readily flex from 3-months to other investments if I wanted to.

As I wrote above, even taking state income taxes into account, T-bills purchased a year ago didn't beat RPHYX, let alone RPHIX, after taxes. Though the numbers do work out differently if you're in the 32% or higher federal bracket.
There is another tax factor to consider: when are taxes due? Interest from 52 week T-bills purchased at the beginning of January 2023 is not taxed until April 2025. That is, all the income is taxed as 2024 income. RPHIX pays periodic dividends, so divs from Jan 2023, Feb 2023, ..., Dec 2023 are all taxed in April 2024.
That's a point in favor of T-bills assuming you purchased T-bills in 2023 that still haven't matured.
Delving even deeper into tax differences, for 2023 RPHIX had a twelve month distribution yield of 5.08% and a total return of 5.87%. That means that only 5.08% is subject to taxes now. The rest of the return is unrealized appreciation. That isn't taxed this coming April, and might not be taxed for years. And when it is, it will be taxed on the federal level at a cap gains rate.
That's a point in favor of RPHIX.
People had lots of reasons to choose T-bills over RPHYX / RPHIX: I wanted more certainty, I wouldn't make that much less with T-bills because of tax issues, I would have to hold the shares for 60+ days to avoid a short term fee, I wanted to diversify/split my bets, etc. Add to that: I couldn't buy shares because the fund was not open a year ago.
Hindsight tells us what we could have done. What matters is what we can do now. RPHYX / RPHIX has reopened to new investors. So there are even more people facing this conundrum now. :-)

Wifey prefers that I continue to move more from tax-sheltered to taxable.

That sure sounds like a bad idea to me @Crash, unless you are paying taxes now and converting to a Roth.

Truth. :)
But I did not mention that we simply do not pay any Federal tax through the 1040. We have not done so for years, and don't expect to, this coming year. Zero tax due, after deductions. Moving the $$$ to taxable just simplifies things for wifey if the worst should happen to me.
I understand your thinking, completely.

FD thinks we’re all 25 years old and should therefore be positioned for the next 50 years.
(Try 25+25+25+3)
Would he tell his great grandma who’s depending on the money to see her through retirement to throw it all into the S&P?

RiverPark is known here for some of its subadvised funds (RPHIX, RSIIX) and those are in the news here. But the firm itself has had issues with turnovers & AUM losses.
M* on RLSFX
"Co-founder and co-chief investment officer Mitch Rubin departed the firm in November 2022 on the heels of weak performance across the firm’s equity strategies. Meanwhile, RiverPark’s assets under management has declined 35% since December 2020 as outflows across most of its products have been persistent in recent years. As of March 2023, the firm’s AUM was USD 2.4 billion, 70% of which was in its two subadvised funds, including its largest fund, RiverPark Short Term High Yield. According to CEO and co-founder Morty Schaja, the firm intends to draw upon the research resources of equity subadvisor Wedgewood, where the firm owns a roughly 2% minority interest. It will take some time to assess how this collaboration will work and what impact it may have.
Other attributes of the firm are mixed. Across the board, the firm’s mutual fund fees remain high, though that is in part a function of their comparatively small size. But Schaja has invested more than USD 1 million in five of the six funds RiverPark offers, and he has broadened ownership of the firm to include other employees, which often helps retain personnel. Indeed, the firm has shown stability in the investment analyst ranks."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/rlsfx/parent

Mitch had a couple disastrous years in both absolute and relative terms. The "all offense, all the time" strategy, always risky, sort of imploded and the funds' small asset base shrank. He left both funds (long-only, long-short), and was replaced by Conrad on both. In a singularly terse exchange, the RiverPark folks would only allow that he had moved on from the firm.
Through luck or skill, both funds posted outstanding performances in 2023.

[snip]
Does it seem like a high proportion of ETFs fail to last for more than 5 or 6 years?
Much greater rate of attrition than mutual funds ISTM. Might be wrong.
[snip]

You are not wrong. The attrition rate for ETFs has been high.
"As of Dec. 13, this year’s nearly 500 exchange-traded fund launches have already broken the record set in 2021 (461). The ETF universe is more expansive than ever: Investors can choose from 3,487 ETFs.
There have been 5,067 ETFs brought to market since SPDR S&P 500 ETF SPY launched in 1993.
This means 31% of them have since closed."
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/best-worst-new-etfs-2023

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
[snip]

Let's not conflate trading with the number of funds an investor holds.
They're two different topics.
There has been ample research indicating investors who trade frequently often fare poorly.
You may be familiar with the seminal paper titled “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors” by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean.
Your prior post stated:
"I could never understand why anyone has more than 7-8 funds (they are usually the ones who say, there is no right number). You go over 10 funds and you are over-diversified. What usually happens with over 10 funds? you are not sure and/or you have owned lagging categories for years. You already know that the SP500 beat most funds over 15-20 years so why do you own so many funds? This was my initial start (1995-2000) investing 90+% in VG Total index and the rest in VG growth."
Regardless of your opinion, there isn't an arbitrary number of funds which is optimal for every investor's unique circumstances. A young investor who is risk tolerant and has many years until retirement can reasonably have only a single fund in their portfolio (e.g., Total World Stock Index fund or target-date fund) if they so choose. Many Bogleheads are fond of a three-fund portfolio often comprised of Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX), Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VTIAX), and Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund (VBTLX). This is a good strategy but it may not be right for everyone. Investors with multiple accounts should probably consider fund availability, optimum asset location, tax consequences, risk tolerance, and personal preferences when constructing their portfolios. These considerations can lead to having more funds than you prescribe. Bottom line - there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
The S&P 500 performed very well over the trailing 10-year and 15-year periods.
It was a very different story during the "Lost Decade" (2000-2009) when the S&P 500 basically went nowhere.
Would the average investor with a large S&P 500 position have the fortitude to stick with this investment
during the "Lost Decade" or would they have sold before the S&P 500 recovery started?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to also include foreign stocks and/or investment-grade bonds in the portfolio?

Interesting that no ETFs appear on that comprehensive list @msf listed. That’s what I was searching the web for. I did stumble on 4 or 5 market neutral ETFs that had already closed. And 2 or 3 that were still around.
Does it seem like a high proportion of ETFs fail to last for more than 5 or 6 years? Much greater rate of attrition than mutual funds ISTM. Might be wrong.
GAMNX -16% in 2022 // +39% in 2023. Yup. Sounds market neutral. :)

PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

Thanks for the tip FD.
Uhh - So you’ve been recommending a closed fund to your friends for 10 years? Good Grief.

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
Investing is never about emotions and feelings, it's all about numbers.
What I do has nothing to do with the above question and why I didn't mention it, but it's amazing how posters would not deal with the above.
Roy, PRWCX is one of these "exceptions to the rule" where a manager can be great for the long term. I have been recommending it as one of the best "moderate"(not a typical one) allocation funds for over 10 years.

+1. @Roy.
*************
Well, yes, I might get cut, but it won't be because I'm trying to catch the knife in mid-air. Just trying to keep things simple. Wifey prefers that I continue to move more from tax-sheltered to taxable. Not so many rules and hoops to jump through, after I'm gone. THAT will be a SLOW process, though. As much as you can depend upon anything, it looks like neither of us is going anywhere permanently for several years, anyhow. (Next birthday= 70. Hers will be age 51.)

Before we happened into PRWCX toward the end of 2006, we were invested directly through 8 funds and 4 different fund companies which covered LCG, LCV, SCG, SCV, real-estate and a couple bond funds. I knew nothing about DG at the time other than he and Arricale had been on the job for less than 6 months. We were 43 & 39 years old but it was very apparent my wife had no interest being involved in our investments, so I was looking to simplify in case something ever happened to me. Most advisors would never have recommended PRWCX by itself for investors our age. But, it has worked for us along with our personal high savings rate.
6 years ago we met with a CFP we know who helps advise >$10 billion at the firm he works for and he told us not to change a thing, as we were well on our way to meeting our retirement goals and that his annual advisory fee could not be justified to take over our accounts.
I won't recommend others investing as we have largely chosen to in the last 17 years, but it has worked for us. At ages 60 & 56 current Monte Carlo simulations have us at 99% success rates if we both retire today.
We've been fortunate to work our whole adult lives, live modestly, and to be vigilant about saving and investing which has also allowed us to give regularly to charitable organizations and individuals in need. For all this I take little credit other than to thank God for the opportunities we've been afforded and been able to take advantage of.
Wishing all a wonderful, peaceful and healthy 2024. I don't contribute much to this site, but have learned so much....thank you.

Among the SC funds that I track, FDSCX, Fidelity Small Cap Selector, is among the leaders for every time period going out 15 years. It’s been a steady, reliable performer — unusual for SC funds, which tend to be streaky. I prefer SC blend funds for that reason.

This thread has gone in an interesting direction.
I have been trying to consolidate the IRA to simplify it in case of the sort of stuff that seems more likely to happen as I get older. But I need more help from Mr. Market to get out of some positions. :).
I have temporarily consolidated the taxable by getting rid of a lot of Vanguard indexes. At the time I sold I decided that I would sit out the market until the next budget standoff and the recovery from holidaze hangovers sets in. Time will tell if I missed out.
I don't mind small positions for the taxable. If they can be left alone, they can turn out alright. And it is my hope to leave them alone. I don't find that they need a lot thinking about, or managing. I do sort of keep an eye on them the way I keep an eye on the trees I have planted.
I don't feel the need to buy the 500. I own tech funds instead. They have been the main driver of growth in that index for many years. But why multiple tech funds? They each do something different. So I think of them as a basket. The techs are FSCSX, TDV, and CSGZX.
I've pretty much stopped paying attention to Lipper and M* labels. The weighting box is still somewhat useful. More useful still are MFO premium and the overlap tool at etfrc.com. So I'm not concerned that I have too much mid cap value because I own PEY and SYLD--two different theses resulting in very little overlap. It is the theses that I am buying. That the weights ends up where they do is not really a factor in my decision to buy.

My own opinion on the current holdings in a managed ETF, not sure it means to much other than looking backwards. Maybe CALF has avoided financial for now but could make it a high percentage going forward. Who knows. You have to have faith in the management and process more so than the current holdings, I think. Same for any ETF or mutual fund.
One interesting statistic on CALF and AVUV. CALF has 100 holdings. 73% of those holdings are also in AVUV which has 748 holdings. Obviously, they like many of the same SC stocks, but CALF is more concentrated.
FWIW, I've held QRSVX at different percentages for many years. A conservative SC that does well over time. I've more recently in the past couple months added both CALF and AVUV to my SC holdings.

- I looked at M*’s stock price and it’s risen this year - to my surprise. I’m thinking eventually AI is going to take a bite out of their income. You should be able to pull up all the info. they provide - and even more - tailored to your specific needs using AI. Yes, I’m sure they will use AI themselves to provide better service. But, just my guess, that eventually it will ding their viewership and profits.
- Stumbled across a Schwab page on a fund I was looking at recently. Appears to be an excellent detailed source of data.
- @msf said, ”For example, it lists "market neutral". That hasn't been around since April 2021”
I tried to dig up a list of market neutral equity funds (across the internet) the other day to look over. Darned hard to find any. Maybe they’ve gone ouf of fashion? Gosh - couldn’t have been more than 20-25 years ago that I owned one.

This still works but not enough criteria(https://screen.morningstar.com/fundselectoraol.html)
Thanks!
Worth noting is that M* hasn't maintained its basic screener (its "official" one as well as this one) for years. This can be seen in its selection of fund categories.
For example, it lists "market neutral". That hasn't been around since April 2021, so a search on this category turns up empty. And it doesn't offer the replacement categories: equity market-neutral, event-driven, and relative value arbitrage.
For 93.567+% of investors, this doesn't matter. Or more accurately, it might matter only if you're searching for one of the new categories. If a category was merged into an older existing one (e.g. long-short credit into nontraditional bond), you'll still find funds, but under a different category.
Here are the category changes:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/introducing-new-alternative-morningstar-categories

Thanks for the feedback @raqueteer. hard to find a consistently strong performing fund in the small cap space if you look at the 1 3 5 and 10 year time frames that also has good downside protection. Large cap has so strongly outperformed small cap over last ten years. Best example I have found that meets these attributes is PKSAX. AVUV and CALF look interesting.

I think M* advisor workstations/terminals cost around $10,000.
It cannot get those kind of revenues from the old M* Premium or the new M* Investor.
Those who haven't visited M* Discussions recently will find several discussion/Q&A areas now for its professional products. M* now sees it as M* online customer support. So, there is still one lone click for Investing Forums that takes one to the neglected, hard-to-navigate M* Discussions areas. It's also private now, so stuff isn't linkable and login is required just to look.
Ironically, years ago M* offered lots of free tools to us, but after lots of free debugging and feedback by us, it has moved those to its professional offerings. Its ambition is to become a mini-Bloomberg. It can claim that it offers many features much cheaper than Bloomberg terminals.
I still hang around M* for TIAA Forum (there is also a Facebook alternative) , etc, but I have moved on for portfolio monitoring and general postings.