A simple answer @Bobpa, with a $50,000 you will make up the $50 TF in about 9 months of owning the fund. All the time past that is extra money in your account.
The difference between expense ratios is 1.05% - 0.9% = 0.15%. The reduced exp ratio equates to $75 saved on a $50k investment in one year. If you buy RPHIX you will spend a 1 time TF of $50 to make an extra $75 in reduced expenses in one year. The next 9 years is gravy.

Keep in mind that the magnitude of the final difference over ten years is affected by the volatility of the returns and by the magnitude of the returns. Just a way of saying that past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
I prefer instead to look at the 0.25% difference in ERs and estimate my breakeven point. For a $50K investment, $50 represents 10 basis points (0.1%). So it would take about 10/25 of a year, or around five months, to break even. Anything after that is gravy.
At Fidelity, you could make incremental additions for $5. So you could add $5K at a time and still have a 5 month break even point.
If volatility and rate of return didn't matter, you could just compare a 0% return on retail shares with a constant 0.25% return on investor class shares after subtracting $50.
This simplistic calculation gives you:
RPHYX: $50K x 1.00 ^ 10 = $50K at the end of 10 years.
RPHIX: $49,950 x (1.0025) ^ 10 = $51,212.89 at the end of 10 years.

I just noticed fred’s link to Schwab isn’t working.
Try This
Here’s the gist:
“Due to our expectations for higher bond yields in the second half of the year, we continue to suggest investors keep the average duration in their portfolios below their normal benchmark. For example, for an investor with a portfolio of core bonds that is similar to the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, which has an average duration of 6.5 years, we would suggest reducing it to the three- to five-year region. If yields do move higher, with real yields in positive territory, we would view it as an opportunity to gradually extend duration through a laddered approach.”
I just dug up the MaxFunds take on CLMAX:
Score: 9 / 100 "Poor"
Outlooks:
Forecast: -2%
Best Case: 22
Worst Case: -30%
Link
Always - 2 sides to every proposition. :)

@fred495 - Thanks for the great summary. You make a strong case. I didn’t miss your original meaning / intent.
At a glance, I’d say these guys know how to short bonds & employ leverage thru derivatives. I like to check returns back to at least 2008 when possible. This one’s less than 10 years old. I’m sure there’s a place for a fund like this in some folks’ portfolios. But if you hold bonds for the “old fashioned” reason - to hedge against economic calamity (like 2008) - than shorting investment grade bonds ISTM probably isn’t going to achieve the desired effect. Possibly these guys are quick on their feet and good at changing course.
Bonds today are a bit of a mystery. Just when everybody and his brother was expecting the 10-year to rise from around 1.7% to 2% it reversed course and fell all the way down to 1.46% (at last look). I’ve heard 2 reasons put forth: (1) Even these low rates look attractive to foreign investors; (2) Corporate pension funds are again healthy because of the hot stock market and need to lock-up funds in bonds to meet obligations 30 + years out. So they’re pouring stock gains into fixed income products.

Now we're reaching well into the realm of diversions.
You cannot spend unrealized gains.
What's being taxed is what we get in, i.e. income, regardless of whether it is spent or saved. If you want to switch what's being taxed from what we get in to what we spend, then suggest replacing income taxes with consumption taxes and see how well the middle class fares.
I have never heard of 'unrealized income'
You've probably heard of phantom income - income that's recognized for tax purposes but not realized. That can't be spent either.

Eliminating capital gains carry over and trying to tax unrealized capital appreciation, even limiting it to a large dollar amounts will only hurt the baby boomers who have inherited the stock Mom got in 1950
Except for 2010, there is no capital gains carry over. Just the opposite - heirs get a step up in basis. So let's skip the nonsense about baby boomers who have inherited stock with several decades of taxable gain. True the gain from 1950 is unrealized, but for tax purposes has already been wiped off the books. Same as ETFs wipe their gains off the books - by passing it along to someone else without being taxed on the transfer and without a cap gains carry over.
Perhaps you're thinking about introducing a capital gains carryover and eliminating the step up, so that the gains become taxable to the heirs. Whether that tax is assessed immediately (by taxing unrealized gains) or not (by taxing gains when realized), the tax liability on that gain remains the same. Only the timing is different.
So how large is that potential liability that "will only hurt baby boomers"?

The Obama administration proposed repealing stepped-up basis subject to several exemptions, including a general exemption for the first $100,000 in accrued gains ($200,000 per couple). The US Department of the Treasury estimated that, together with raising the capital gains rate to 28 percent, this proposal would raise $210 billion over 10 years. Ninety-nine percent of the revenue raised would come from the top 1 percent of households ranked by income.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-difference-between-carryover-basis-and-step-basis
You may very well be right demographically. It could be the baby boomers getting all this liability. But that's not the question. The question is which baby boomers. The 1 percenters or the 99 percenters?

I have some cash sitting on the sideline looking for a home. CLMAX has been on my watch list for a while as a fund that actively, and mostly successfully, tries to manage interest rate risk. If, as the Schwab outlook states, 10-year Treasury yields may rise to the 2.0% to 2.5% level, I expect this fund to be able to navigate the expected rate rise as well as it did in the recent past when rates rose.
I don't know of any other fund that has managed interest rate volatility as well and as consistently as CLMAX. Over the past five years, annual total returns have fluctuated nicely within a range of 5.2 and 8.9%, and YTD it's up 6.1%. In the Nontraditional Bond category, M* determined that the fund's 3-year and 5-year total returns rank in the top 1%.
In the meantime, I hold the following three dedicated bond funds in my portfolio: NVHAX, RCTIX and TSIIX, with very pleasing YTD total returns of 5.9%, 3.6% and 1.8%, respectively. So far, so good.
Fred

ProPublica did its usual thorough job in crunching numbers, with thoughtful and transparent methodology. See, e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-true-tax-rates-of-the-wealthiest
That said, I agree that the press release was designed as much to shock as to inform. Like some others, I'm not thrilled with the way the "true tax" rate was presented. But there is something real behind it. The greater the wealth, the greater the amount of unrecognized income.
The problem I see with ProPublica's presentation is not in the point being made, but in the way it glides too easily between wealth and income. ProPublica is more precise in its full writings, but is glib in its summary.
Net increase in wealth is a reasonable measure of income for the wealthy, because "operating expenses" like necessities and taxes become a smaller percentage of asset gain as wealth goes up. But for the "common man", this is not a good calculation.
For the typical middle class, early 40s household, net increase in wealth over the past five years (ending in 2018) was $65K while this household paid $62K in federal taxes - a 95% "true tax" rate. (ProPublica figures.) The reason is twofold: taxes and living expenses roughly match wage income so savings/growth is a small percentage of wealth, and what growth there is comes almost all from home appreciation.
I hesitate to say that the issues raised by Shostakovich and sma3 are distractions, but they are details that don't take away from the main point. It's not just on growth of old-tech company stock where taxes are deferred, but also on the laborer's home appreciation.
Further, how we tax home appreciation shows it is possible to protect the average person while still taxing outsized gains. We exempt $250K/$500K of gain on homes, even when it is realized. That means a lot to most people, but but it is a pittance on $100M mansions.
sma3 wonders how unrealized capital losses would be handled. Why would that be any different from the way we treat realized losses? Currently you get to apply $3K of losses against ordinary income, but you have to carry over the rest on your books. It's not a hard problem; it's what we do now. And that $3K cap is another way in which we try not to hurt the typical taxpayer (letting them get an immediate benefit from losses) while not facilitating abuse of the system (converting huge cap gains losses into ordinary losses).
I agree that the headline piece was designed for shock value; I disagree that there is less substance in the whole piece of work than meets the eye.

It is the 10% probability that the homeowners will need the insurance against natural disasters including fire, wind storm and others. Several years ago our house was damaged by a large tree fallen on the side of the house. The total bill came to about $30K. I expect homeowner insurance will rise again given the replacement cost of our home has gone up considerably.
Given the global warming, flood insurance is on the rise on southeast coast as the major cities faces several hurricanes per year. Living in Pacific Northwest we experienced wildfires last year.

@OldJoe, dunno if you're responding to me or not, but I was talking about investing. All of us should expect to see prices going up on anything related to ag commodities; after six straight years of negative returns (which does NOT mean food prices didn't rise then), DBA is up 18% this year so far. Get ready for more.
Meanwhile, I'm sticking with my decision not to add to commodities or other inflation assets. If you're concerned about food prices, though, maybe you could think about buying some ag commodities to help offset your costs.

I found the original article pretty underwhelming scandal-mongering.
For the record, the system that favors Bezos also favors me -- I have a very small number of shares in a boring old-tech company that were gifted to me a number of years ago which I (foolishly) never cashed out when I first received (and was a struggling student). As such I have modest paper wealth as well that I'm not paying tax on.

Call me dense on this subject, but ISTM we already have virtual dollars. Years ago, when the government printed money, it really printed it. Now the Fed just adds virtual dollars electronically to banks' reserves. Voila, instant, albeit virtual, cash. Obviously these virtual dollars are tied to "real" dollars because they're denominated in real dollars.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2017/november/does-federal-reserve-print-money
The Digital Dollar piece linked to above claims that "Transfer payments, such as those provided by governments to people during the Covid-19 crisis, would be made faster and easier if that money could be deposited directly into digital wallets."
"Digital" currency wouldn't have made them go any faster, because the payments were already made electronically at least to some recipients.
What we don't have (yet) are virtual wallets. So called "virtual wallets" now are just software layered upon existing payment systems.
A prepaid, rechargeable card comes close to a virtual wallet. Conceptually, it stores cash value on the card, like a physical wallet stores paper money. Potential loss is limited to the amount on the card, as is potential loss from having a "real" wallet stolen. They can be recharged with cash without using a bank. (I suspect the reality is that prepaid cards still rely on being connected to a server. That would mean less anonymity than advertised, and a greater possibility of failure as compared with pulling a dollar bill out of your wallet.)
In short, so long as "virtual" dollars are linked to "real" dollars, I don't see a big difference between them and the current, largely virtual system. There are significant concerns (notably in privacy and access) with a cashless society. But that's a different question, one that arises as virtual dollars supplant physical money.

That very thing has made my blood boil for many years: deceptive packaging that gives the appearance (or almost the same appearance) as the last time you bought, but the CONTENTS of the package has shrunk. Price? Same or higher. Gov't inflation numbers are indeed BS. Ice cream. Triscuits. ANY box of crackers, really. Soup. You name it. ...

"...Demographic trends mean that women are controlling a greater share of financial wealth, since they live longer than male partners. At present, women control about 53% of investible assets; by 2030 this will rise to two-thirds, according to a study by the Family Wealth Advisors Council. ‘Making the industry more women-friendly has to be a clear priority,’ Jones says."
Is the goal to manage money and grow it, or to make women feel comfortable? Wise decisions are key. Men trade much more often, says the article. That may be true. So, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Seems to me, however, that it's not gender that matters, but a thing called WISDOM. I just made my first and only trade in YEARS the other day, buying a VERY small position in a foreign electric utility company. *The most recent "Wealthtrack" show with Consuelo Mack featured Dan Rosenberg. Right now, he's suggesting UTILITIES because they are currently out of favor. (Gretzky: "I don't skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is GOING TO BE.")

I have several accounts which I treat each separately but with an eye on overall allocation. My primary accounts withover 50% of my assets is an IRA Rollover with 14 Funds focusing on low correlation, distinct style boxes, asset allocation etc. I rarely update this portfolio and have allocations to both Growth and Value in Domestic Large, Mid and Small. Also, I like to invest in Int'l Gorwth and Value where most investors pick one Int'l Fund. I also own EM and Int'l SMid, Fixed Inc Core Plus, Multi-Sector Fixed.
I have a Roth @ Vanguard with 3-4 Index Funds. My current 401k is my tactical portfolio with another 10-12 funds & ETF's.
I will consolidate over the next10-15 years as I get closer to retirement.

I guess I felt obligated to caution the uninitiated about the volatility of this sector. There’s lots of different ways to play the inflation card - if you think that’s where we’re going. Bullion is tamer than the miners, and there’s lots of allocation funds with limited exposure.
Adding up the string of 5 consecutive red (loosing) years for OPGSX beginning in 2011 I get north of 120%. Ouch! Who has the stamina to ride something like that out? (And it’s “5 stars” at M* - which should make you wonder about those ratings).
OK - I did my civic duty.

It isn't as easy as it sounds. They make it difficult for you to renounce your US citizenship. If your net worth is over 2 million$, then they make you pay all of the tax that you could possibly pay. Then you are liable for taxes for 10 years after you renounce. Plus, it's not like these other countries will let you get away with paying no tax. Maybe in the Caribbean, but that could change. So you renounce, pay a huge amount of taxes to the US, and are liable for the next 10 years. In Portugal, they have a special deal where you don't get taxed on your foreign income as long as it can be taxed in your home country. That plan is good for 10 years.
The guy you mentioned is Andrew Henderson from Nomad Capitalist. It sounds like he isn't a tax resident anywhere since he has 3 or four homes around the world. He renounced his US citizenship. I guess it can be done legally, but everything is subject to change. Anyway the ultra rich don't need to worry because they get away without paying much tax legally.

YES, that's the guy. He never mentions all of the specifics you detailed. SHIT! Can the IRS really do that to someone? I have no sympathy for the uber-wealthy, but there must be limits upon what they can demand..... Henderson said that he renounced in some foreign US Consulate or Embassy, and they all were quite professional and considerate. And that was that. Wow. ...Yes, he owns homes in a few countries, recently got married. With the St. Lucia citizenship, he'd need a visa to come visit the USA again...

It isn't as easy as it sounds. They make it difficult for you to renounce your US citizenship. If your net worth is over 2 million$, then they make you pay all of the tax that you could possibly pay. Then you are liable for taxes for 10 years after you renounce. Plus, it's not like these other countries will let you get away with paying no tax. Maybe in the Caribbean, but that could change. So you renounce, pay a huge amount of taxes to the US, and are liable for the next 10 years. In Portugal, they have a special deal where you don't get taxed on your foreign income as long as it can be taxed in your home country. That plan is good for 10 years.
The guy you mentioned is Andrew Henderson from Nomad Capitalist. It sounds like he isn't a tax resident anywhere since he has 3 or four homes around the world. He renounced his US citizenship. I guess it can be done legally, but everything is subject to change. Anyway the ultra rich don't need to worry because they get away without paying much tax legally.

I am in bond funds because they offer me the best returns with the lowest risk. Their trend persistency combined with their low volatility enable me to best implement the scale up buying strategy I learned from Nicolas Darvas. My first bond trade was in junk bonds in 1991. It was January 17 one of the greatest momentum days ever in equities. That day the Dow surged some 114 points which at that time was its second best on record. As is often the case there was a lag and a few days later junk bonds went on tear and had 60 consecutive trading days without a decline. That smooth ride upward continued for the next three years until February 1994 in junk bonds as they bested the S@P over that period.
That one LUCKY trade made a lasting impression on me and the way I have traded my capital ever since. Most especially after the tech wreck in March 2000. There have been many repeat performances and exhibitions of unreal trend persistency since 2000 in various bond fund categories. Emerging market debt in the early 2000s, junk bonds 2009-12, junk munis 2014, bank loans 2016, and last but not least the securitized category since last spring - IOFIX, BDKAX, abd SEMPX. IOFIX has had something like only 8 down days since last April 2020 when many of the veteran bond traders re entered. An amazing run over a 15 month period.
Some remember me as a day trader in the stock index futures. Others as a trader in tech funds who also exploited the new fund effect as well as datelining. Yet less than 3% of my total trading profits have come from daytrading and only around 13% from tech funds, new funds, datelining. Meaning almost 85% of my nest egg has come from bond funds - my one true love in the financial arena. I have always said everyone needs a trading or investing niche and I found my niche in bond funds.

Kinda like HollyWood Squares. I'll go with top/center for the win. Does she currently do any business broadcasting? I've not watched that network for years.

Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “
Okay hank, I am not attempting to "immunize the thread" from mentioning PRWCX. I am simply stating that PRWCX is not a Bond Fund, it is an allocation fund, in which equities are the focused investment, and bonds are more in the "ballast" category, as a complement to equities. I have been in many thread debates, in which PRWCX investors, do not think PRWCX should even be classified as an "allocation fund", but rather it should be classified as a value oriented equity fund. Giroux has a history of being a value oriented investor, who will decrease equities when he thinks they are overvalued, and use the bond component (or cash) as a way of holding assets, that can be used to buy equities when they are fairly valued. There are many investors who invest in that manner, but the question is what "bond fund" are they going to use as a ballast fund for their equities, or will they just pick their favorite allocation fund, and let that manager choose bonds as they desire. Other investors, are more focused bond fund investors, who will use selected "bond funds" for total return and ballast. When they look to "bond funds", it makes sense to look at those "bond fund" managers, who excel in performance for those bond funds, to meet bond fund objectives, that fit the roles investors using those "bond funds". What I have learned about your posts on PRWCX, is that Giroux is a great "allocation fund" manager, who believes that Investment Grade Bond oefs and treasuries are out of favor for his allocation fund, and the other types of bonds (not specifically identified for this thread) are short duration bond holdings. I choose to emphasize what great bond fund managers, (like Ivascyn, Gundlach, etc.) are doing with their investments, but other posters/lurkers will likely find value in other ways on this "bond fund" thread.