I don't worry about "go anywhere" but I have owned WHGIX for many years and it has served me fairly well; of course, you must keep this fund in perspective. As wm72 stated it does not hit home runs, but it is fairly steady, good safety and tax-efficient for its category.
If it fits into your overall portfolio objective, then it is a solid choice (IMHO).
Good luck and profitable investing going forward to both of us wm72 and any others invested!!
Matt

"I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%. "
Okay, but what are you saying? That this is better than cash, or that it's worse than more volatile funds?

I wasn't saying anything other than what was stated - the numbers provided by *M. People can make their own conclusions based on the numbers. Taxes may play a part in returns so I think it's important to keep that in mind, especially for those holding these types of funds in taxable accounts.

I checked with my favorite site for total return ...
I also checked performance at M*, with their closest return indicator at 5 years and the total return numbers since inception are a match within .02%.
I fired up my handy-dandy HP-12C and did rough numbers.
RPHYX is 6.38 years old and has a total return of 17.75% in this time frame. The math indicates an annualized return of 2.78 (M* reads 2.76% at the 5 year return), before any taxes if held in such an account.

M* has all the data, you just have to know how to coax it out. If you go to the chart page, you'll get a chart for the lifetime of the fund. $10K grew to $12,137.31, for a total return of 21.3731%. (You can also see this on the summary page chart.)
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=RPHYX&region=usa&culture=en-US
The Stockchart link you gave appears to go back only to March 24, 2011 (just over 6.0 years). The fund started Sept. 30, 2010 (just over 6.5 years). Not sure where 6 3/8 years came from.
The M* chart can be adjusted for any dates. If I adjust it to begin on March 24, 2011, I get a total return of 19.17%. I don't yet have an explanation for the discrepancy.

"I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%. "
Okay, but what are you saying? That this is better than cash, or that it's worse than more volatile funds?
If someone was in the top marginal tax bracket (that's how M* computes tax-adjusted returns), then they probably owned RPHIX that gave an extra 1/6% or so in return (after taxes). You can also add another 0.1%/year to the after tax return to account for the capital loss writeoff when cashing out. (Shares were around $10/share until about 3 years ago; they're now around $9.75.)
So over five years, the after tax return looks closer to 1.65%. Not bad compared to a five year CD (offered five years ago). Even before taking out the 30+% (top rate) taxes on that CD.
http://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates-1984-2016/
The after-tax return also looks good compared to short-intermediate muni funds like BTMIX, VMLUX, or FSTFX. (I'm inclined to look in this duration range for muni funds; anything shorter doesn't seem to pay enough to beat cash, and anything longer seems to have too much interest rate risk.)

I don't have any money with this horse and will not; but was curious. I checked with my favorite site for total return, and the graphic is at the below link.
I also checked performance at M*, with their closest return indicator at 5 years and the total return numbers since inception are very close.
I fired up my handy-dandy HP-12C and did rough numbers.
RPHYX data is for a time period of 6 years; and has a total return of 17.75% in this time frame. The rough math indicates an annualized return of 2.89 (M* reads 2.76% at the 5 year return), before any taxes, if held in such an account.
Stockcharts by default, uses adjusted calculations for returns. The adjustments are for common items as; dividends, cap. gains, splits and assumes everything reinvested; whatever affects total return. I prefer this method versus the commonly used price/NAV only shown at many charts. I want the whole picture for the investment return. If one wants price only appreciation, an _ is placed in front of the ticker symbol.
The below linked chart is "active", meaning that you may add up to 9 more tickers separated by a comma; if you want to compare something else. Save the page for future use, if you have not. Lastly, Stockcharts will not chart a ticker that has not yet attained an age of 2 years.
One may move the slider bar under the graphic to change the begin and end period if you want to view a particular period.
Pillow time here,being a bit to the tired side ......hoping for no errors in the above; .
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?RPHYX&n=1519&O=111000

I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%.

"The instititional version is a tad better but not that better."
True. Just the very little bit better that's needed to give the institutional class an extra star. (An artifact of star ratings being discrete; 1.99 stars are not given out, only 1 or 2.)

Since inception it is 3.31 vs. 3.02. So closer to what David was speaking of. I was speaking of the past three and five years. It is not unusual for a new fund to outperform its first year or two with small AUM and this fund is no exception. RPHYX hasn't done 3.5% to 4.5% since 2012. What dragged its 3 and 5 year returns down was 0.86% in 2015 when junk had its worst year since..... I am not trying to start a fight with David. I have said it is great as a sub for cash and retirees. It has been on an up trajectory with about as least volatility as you can find.

I'm confused as to how it can be both "2.20% over the past 3 years" and "3.5-4.5% every year except 2012". Surely one of these two statements may be in error?

I am going by Morningstar and the retail class RPHYX. The instititional version is a tad better but not that better.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/RPHYX/quote.html

I'm confused as to how it can be both "2.20% over the past 3 years" and "3.5-4.5% every year except 2012". Surely one of these two statements may be in error?

Right. It's part of a cash-management portfolio. Roughly 3.5-4.5% a year with negligible volatility.
The reasons we offered for folks to consider it were: 300-400 bps more than a money market, minimal volatility, protection against rising interest rates and shareholder-friendly management.
I admit to sometimes being purposely a bit provocative. But this time not. Just my OCD about detail.
This fund is not going to give you 3.5%-4.5% a year. I mean 2.20% over the past 3 years and 2.76 over the past 5 years. This year it is on track for around 2.80. Some of the Fidelity money market funds are now yielding over 1% (of course you will need a million dollars) And lesser money market funds yields are rising and will continue to rise with the increase in the fed funds rate. So no way 300-400bps over money market. Otherwise a fine fund with negligible volatility and way above money market returns (for now) This we can agree on.

"The response you will get is that it is mischaracterized as a high yield fund by Morningstar."
Not quite. My response is that it has few if any peers, so it is not a mischaracterization by Morningstar (an extrinsic error). Rather because of its unusual nature (and perhaps unique investment strategey) intrinsically any characterization winds up being inadequate.
(Sometimes M* could do a better job in selecting a bucket for a given fund; this is not one of them. As Junkster wrote, it's not as though this fund doesn't share attributes with other HY funds.)
In such situations one is better served by looking at category-independent metrics. That's what David did in pointing out RPHYX's superb Sharpe ratio.
FWIW, the duration of the fund, at 1.28 years, is below all but a few other HY funds that you could count on one hand. The category average is 3.6 years (from M*).
Of that handful of short duration HY funds, perhaps the one that has been most talked about here is ZEOIX. A more conventional fund, with admittedly better performance. (It lands in the 96th percentile over five years, so it beats RPHYX's 97th percentile.) But to achieve that "outperformance", it endures a standard deviation nearly double that of RPHYX. If I'm looking for an enhanced cash fund, I'm quite willing to give up a bit of performance for a more stable fund.

From Ted's link:"The hypothetical employee in the study started working for $10,000 a year in 1975 and got annual raises equal to 1.5 percentage points above inflation.
It seems to me that might be hard to ingest for the year(s) where cds were paying 15 - 16 %. What kind of raise would that work out to ?
@Bee : Did you post some thoughts on this glide path idea last year? I looked at doing something like this , but never pulled the trigger.
After many bond beating years, this glide path may not work as well if interest rates keep rising !?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Derf

I believe Target Date Funds could be used in a totally different manner than they are typically advertised which usually means these funds "target a retirement date".
I propose using these funds to provide a glide path of risk that "targets income needs in retirement" over future 5 year time periods.
Let's say I am 57 years of age in 2017 and I see a need for my investments to provide me an income of $X/month (adjusted for inflation) starting in three years (age 60).
So, a 2020 Target Date Fund would be funded with 5 years of spending (for age 60-64). So in 2020, I would begin disbursements from this 2020 fund and spend this fund down over the next 5 years (2020-2024). A Target Date Fund remains invested very conservatively after it reaches its target date which is perfect for spend down.
At age 57, I also would fund a 2025 Target Date Fund to begin disbursement in 2025 (from age 65-69).
I also would fund a 2030 Target Date Fund to disburse in 2030 (from age 70-74)
and so on...
Beyond the first 15 years I would then use 10 year increments such as,
2040 Fund for years 75-84
2050 Fund for years 85 - older
5 Funds all done.
For emergencies I might conservatively fund an additional 3-5 years of spending and replenish as needed.
All other resources could be aggressively invested without the worry of spending these resources at the wrong time (a bear market).
The beauty of a Target Date Funds is that they glide away from risk as they approach the spend down date (target date) and remains low risk during the 5 year spend down period.
Longer dated funds have time to deal with the risk/reward of the market serving as the inflation hedge.

SPFPX outperformance the first three years was due to its miniscule assets under management. So miniscule that a couple of us on this forum held something like 15% of its total AUM. Since then AUM have skyrocketed and as Ted said it has been run of the mill, especially last year when it underperformed its peers.

This is good news for existing shareholders. Assets in QMNIX have gone from $1 million to more than $1 billion in less than 3 years. I commend AQR for closing the door and not allow the fund to get bloated. Remember what fate befell MFLDX.

I think this is all much ado about nothing. In case folks didn't know, Schwab, Vanguard and Fidelity are currently in a pricing war, each one lowering its fees on funds and ETFs, sometimes on the same day. I don't know about you, but every hundredth of a percent is a boon for investors. Schwab's funds have always been competitive with Vanguard from a cost standpoint, as recently as a couple of years being even lower than Vanguard. Obviously Vanguard doesn't like this, since it's ALWAYS bragged about low-cost index funds. And here come Fidelity and Schwab calling Vanguard's bluff, resulting in a race to see who can offer these funds for the lowest cost. Ted is right that Dan is a shill for Vanguard. But my point is that none of this matters. Whether you choose the S&P 500, the 1000, some kind of Total Market, or something in between, it all comes out pretty much the same. Long-term investors would have been served well in ANY of these over the last 10 years, all of them returning between 7.2% and 7.4% annually. So Dan, the add was accurate as far as it went. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over Schwab stepping into Vanguard's low-cost turf. As for MFO investors, lower index fund fees are a positive change.

Funny, just two days ago I wrote the following email to my daughter (at her request):
"Here's my summary of financial planning. Or, you could read a 300 page book and get the same information with more details.
1) Have an emergency account. Ideally, it should have three months cost of living in it. At a minimum, have a couple of thousand dollars so you can fix a broken car, etc. without panic.
2) Plan a budget. Specifically, you should know your weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual spending requirements in advance for the most part. Make sure you have the money set into "buckets" for those expenses. Examples: rent, insurance, food, loan payments, vacations, etc. Also, there should be a bucket for allowances for each of you. Just because you have money left over doesn't mean that it is "allowance". Actually plan in advance how much "fun money" seems reasonable. Left-over money should go into savings for #3 or #4.
3) Save for retirement.
4) Save for a house or condo.
The easiest way to save for retirement is through a work 401k plan if they offer one. For most folks starting in their 20s, plan to save about 12% of your gross income. The company match if there is one is added on to this. If there is no company match, plan to save 15%. If you don't have access to a 401k, or if you want to save more, just open an IRA for each of you. Invest it 80% or more in the stock market (see details below). This will probably get you retired around age 60. If you save more, you can retire sooner.
The stock market is the best place for long term investing. The reason is stocks go up and down in the short run, but in the long run the market has always gone up. One easy way to invest is to just put 100% of your money into the Vanguard VTI exchange traded fund (ETF). Just add more money every month or every quarter or every year or whatever. If you want to "smooth out the bumps" some, you can get a little more complicated. Invest some of it in a fund that invests internationally instead of just the US. Some years that will be better, some years worse, but you'll get similar results with a smoother ride. An example ETF for this is VXUS. Another option is to invest some money in the bond market (usually slightly lower returns in the long run but definitely smooths the bumps). Finally, to probably increase your results in the long run, invest in small companies (fund VBR) more than large ones.
Keep in mind that the dips the stock market goes through don't really hurt you in the long run and actually help a little. If you are investing a certain amount every month (say $1000) to buy stocks, when the stock price goes down you get to buy more of them. Then when it goes back up, you gain faster than if it just went up the same amount every month.
The way to use the multiple funds is to:
- set target percentages
- each time you add money to the investments add to the ones that are trailing your targets
Example targets you could use:
40% VTI (total US stock market)
20% VXUS (international stocks)
20% VBR (small company stocks)
20% BND (total US bond market)
Saving for a house/condo is different. It should be in some pretty secure investment, like a credit union savings account or CDs, but not the stock market. You'll probably want to actually spend the money in just a few years, so you don't want to have a down stock market right when you need the money. Most folks living in a high cost-of-living area like Seattle probably spend about 30% of their gross income on housing. So for you, if you make a combined $130,000, 30% is 39,000. If you currently pay rent of $22,000 per year, save the other 17,000.
OK, where/how to open an account. I use Vanguard and Schwab for my retirement accounts and like both of them. You can open the accounts online and they both have good phone support, and Schwab has a Seattle office if you want to talk with a human being. The steps are:
- open the account (an IRA or a Roth IRA or a regular investment account)
- make an initial deposit (usually by an ACH transfer from your credit union savings or checking); this goes to a basic money market fund (kind of like a checking account)
- move the money into your chosen ETF investments
IRA and Roth IRA accounts are called "tax advantaged". The government wants people to save for retirement so they try to make it enticing. An IRA (like a 401k) lets you not pay income tax on the money you save. Instead, you pay income taxes when you take the money out 40 years from now. This is called "tax deferred".
A Roth IRA or a Roth 401k is different. You do pay income tax now on the money that you save. But when you take the money out later you do not pay any taxes then.
If the income tax rate now and 40 years from now is the same, it makes no mathematical difference which approach you use. If you expect your tax rate to be higher in the future, use the Roth approach. If you expect your tax rate to be lower in the future, use a regular IRA. Or you can do some of each to hedge your bets. Use a Roth 401k at work and a regular IRA, or a regular 401k at work and a Roth IRA.
I've got some good books if you want more details, but this is the basics."

Agree with @dstone42 about advantages of 529 investing. TIAA manages Michigan's plan about which I have no complaints. There's a state income tax credit on up to 10k per year, but only in years you put in and don't take out. As to the issue of how hard the money is to get out, I do know this. Accustomed as I am to rapid wire transfers, I was caught short and paid a $30 late fee this semester because it takes 3-5 business days to do an electronic transfer. At tax time, be prepared to show your proofs (textbook receipts, classroom or lab clickers, tuition bills, evidence of scholarships, etc). Don't know how it may work in other states and especially for a small college that the plan may not have in its database.

There's the tax advantage of a 529 fund -- the gains are not taxed (as long as the withdrawals are used for college education).
I opened an account for each grandchild -- two of them with T Rowe Price (Alaska state plan) and three with Nebraska state plan. I don't use their target date funds -- there are some regular mutual fund choices (that's what I looked for when starting). It's mostly on automatic pilot -- $100 per kid per month out of my checking account. With an extra contribution at birthday and Christmas. It's hard to find time to examine the results closely, but the total has grown nicely and the individual funds' numbers stack up pretty well with S&P 500. The two older boys are in the sixth grade now, so in a few years I'll see how complicated it is to get the money out.

Do I love BBALX? Nope. I respect it as a well-designed tool. it's cheap, disciplined and less subject to manager risk than a purely active fund. Is it the right tool for your project? Don't know. But I have faith that you'll figure it out.
I didn't read the write up of this fund. It appears to be a fund of funds. I know that many here look at all sort of metrics in evaluating mutual funds. Color me stupid but I thought the whole purpose in buying mutual funds was to accumulate wealth - at least when we are in the accumulation phase. Based on this fund's performance over the past 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 years it can't hold a candle to a simple passive investment in an S&P index fund.