I thought it might help to gather some investing resources to share. If you have a few... share.
Here is a nice way to track the S&P 500 PE Ratio (along with other charts S&P 500 CAPE, 10 yr treasury, & others):
https://multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio
Global Stock Valuations:
https://starcapital.de/en/research/stock-market-valuation/

Hi, expatsp!
I remain comfortable with RPHYX. It's doing what I anticipated. The manager continues finding opportunities, some reportedly remarkable.
Mr. Sherman has never compared his fund to an insured savings account. He's also said that it comes with risks but that he thought the risks were definable and manageable. He's allowed that the fund might be underway for six-nine months but was comfortable that investors would be made whole in something like that time. (Might it be nine months this time? Maybe. Don't know.)
That roughly aligns with the fund's history: the historic recovery period for RPHYX has been seven months, MINT has been six, ZEOIX has been five. ZEOIX tends to fall harder and rebound faster.
- - -
I would be very thoughtful about what I compared my investments to. When people celebrate the success of "plain vanilla bond indexes," what they might actually be seeing is the performance of the Treasury component of indexes. What has succeeded over the past month have been the panic-purchase investments. The only Vanguard bond indexes above zero over the past month are Treasuries (or GNMA which is government-backed).
Vanguard Short-Term Treasury (VFISX) yields 0.8%, costs 0.2% and has risen 1.47% in four weeks. That's equivalent to 10 months of its normal (5 year) annual returns. Currently the yield on one-year Treasuries is 0.25%; deduct the 0.2% and you're yielding 0.05% a year.
Intermediate and Long-Term Treasuries have both returned more in four weeks than they normally would in an entire year.
If you look at the Vanguard bond index returns, the longer the term on Treasuries, the higher the four-week return. If you look at the Vanguard corporate bond indexes, all are substantially negative and the longer the term, the greater the loss.
- - -
I entirely understand folks' concern. I'm with ya 100% - maybe 150%; some days, 162.4%. We all want to look at see green somewhere. I would have felt all warm and fuzzy if RPHYX, at least, was above water. That was my feeling in 2013 when RPHYX was up 3.4% while the Total Bond Market was down 2.3% and Long-Term Treasuries, today's heroes, were down 13%. As is, I'm merely calm and patient.
For what that's worth,
David

Different people have different expectations and risk can mean different things to them.
There's a difference between expectations and certainties. Stocks had a dismal decade in the 2000s. "Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704786204574607993448916718
Stuff happens. It doesn't mean that rather than investing in stocks one should stuff a mattress. It means that sometimes one's expectations are not met; that's the nature of risk.
Personally, if a fund like RPHYX underperformed VMMXX over a period of several years, it wouldn't bother me, so long as the margin of underperformance was within my tolerance range. I'm willing to accept the possibility of underperformance for extended periods, given the expectation that over time I'll outperform. Meanwhile, I can live with the small losses. But each person is different.
With that in mind:
1) Yes, RPHYX is supposed to be more risky than VMMXX. Especially now that the government has once again put its thumb on the scale to reduce the risk to VMMXX.
2) As I noted in my post seven years ago, Strong had recommended a time frame of 1-2 years for its Advantage fund. I felt then and continue to feel that this is a reasonable recommendation. Over this period of time one expects to do better than a MMF, but that is different from saying it will always happen.
3) As I tried to show above, taking on any risk means that sometimes things don't work out. That's true whether it's investing in a MMF that could break a buck or in stocks for a decade. One takes on the risk because the anticipated, the hoped for reward is sufficiently high to compensate for the occasions when outcomes are worse than anticipated.
Each individual weighs risks and rewards differently. It's personal and there's no single right decision. YMMV.

Relax, breathe easy for now at least for today. By Alpha General Capital at Seeking Alpha
Summary
° The PIMCO UNII report showed some modest progress on coverage and UNII levels.
° Obviously, the traditional looks at this report are less important given what is happening in the markets and with these funds specifically.
° We expect distributions to be maintained in most of the taxable bond CEFs from PIMCO and that the muni funds are investable for the first time in years.
° Most funds earned their distribution in the month according to NII production with small shortfalls in the others. Nothing concerning.
The Report

@Sven Its my understanding the massive stimulus bill the Senate will vote on today will provide substantial cash to individual households including $1200 checks to many individuals and an additional $600 per week for 4 months in unemployment insurance coverage. And, they are already talking about a follow up stimulus program. So, the fiscal policy people are acting on that front. The Fed is demonstrating it is all in on its side and will provide massive support to the economy (for better or worse in the long run) in ways the legislative branch can not. That's the takeaway message I am getting out of all of this....

I am also looking at what to prune and what to add. Two global growth funds, MGGPX and BGAFX, have held up amazingly well. I own the former, but consider the latter to be its equal. As of last night neither fund had lost more than 15% YTD, with the Baron fund at around -9%. All this could change in an instant, but I could see jettisoning APFDX and cutting back on DSENX in favor of one or both of MGGPX or BGAFX. Kind of surprised the Baron fund is not a Great Owl.

Its helpful to remember this.....

Those pining for a bottom to the gut-wrenching stock market selloff may be disappointed to learn that mega one-day rallies like the historic one witnessed on Tuesday are typically not the start of a durable recovery.
Going by history, those looking to time the end of the bear market should be more encouraged by days when investors take modest bites at risky assets rather than great big mouthfuls.

https://reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-markets-surge/treat-with-caution-rocketing-stocks-arent-cause-for-comfort-idUSKBN21C0JE

@msf You said: "It is best used for the cash portion of one's asset allocation, not for daily expenses"
First, I'm responsible for my own decisions and I'm not blaming anyone else. However, when we put it the way you put it, what should one conclude when we say "cash portion"?
I agree it is unrealistic to expect RPHYX to "not break the buck" in a manner of speaking. So at this time I have the following questions
1) Is RPHYX supposed to be more risky than a non-FDIC insured MM fund like Vanguard Prime Money Market?
2) If answer to 1 is "Yes", then what is a reasonable amount of time I should expect to wait for it to perform better than Vanguard Prime Money Market - this can be an opinion.
3) If answer to 1 is "No", then what is/are the reason(s) to invest in RPHYX.
I have to ask these questions because while I didn't expect NAV of RPHYX to stay constant, I expect over 6-month time frame I don't lose my principal. To me this is what I - and IMHO any reasonable person - can tolerate for his "cash portion" and I'm happy to wait that time. If anyone disagrees with that I'm open to someone re-defining my notion of "cash portion".
If one's "cash portion" is say 30% of the portfolio, like some "absolute value" mutual funds, I don't think they would tolerate RPHYX behavior , but I welcome any evidence to rebut this as well.

You may want to checked again on TRP website. YTD as of 3/20/2020 is -17.2% ! Floating rate bonds are BBB and below rated bonds, i.e. junk bonds. Junk bonds move in the same direction as equities, thus has no downside protection.

In this crash, it [RPHYX] has underperformed both vanilla bond funds like MWTRX and Vanguard's bond index fund, VBMFX ...
It was supposed to offer minimal downside. As it turns out, in this stress situation, it has offered more downside than a total bond market index fund ...

RPHYX is supposed to offer a more steady ride, not outperform over mid- to long-term. In that, it has succeeded.
Here's a graph plotting the 3 month performance of these three funds. The "crash", or "downside" begins for the vanilla bond fund VBMFX and the core plus bond fund MWTRX (and the average intermediate core plus bond fund) begin around March 8th.
Here's the graph comparing their performance from March 8th on.
Average core plus: -8.2%
MWTRX: -5.3%
VBMFX: -4.4%
US bond index: -4.1%
RPHYX: -2.3%
Not quite the steady eddy one might have hoped for, but half as much loss on the downside. As others have pointed out, there's a difference between cash and any fund not pegged to a $1.00 NAV. RPHYX is not a checking account. It is best used for the cash portion of one's asset allocation, not for daily expenses.

Thank you; most kind.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/obituaries/alan-finder-obituary-1.43423378
Complete coincidence that we both trained to be academics and teachers, argued about history of ideas (and politics) 50+ years ago, and were teachers for a while, and then each separately wound up in journalism and editorial work forevermore. It is shocking (literally) to have someone in good health die like this. I sure am hoping everyone here is able to stay mostly safe and scrubbed and more or less isolated even in their declining wealth.

The old $10k-growth quote graphing from M*, which is not up to date tonight yet for many of these, shows that since 2/21 CAPE is right in the middle of, well, not its peers, but other ones I follow and think 'I should have done instead' ... NOBL, OUSA, DVY, VIG, SCHD, SPLV.
So there seems no particular or new reason to jettison CAPE, whether you understand it or not.
Certainly the DSE_X bond sauce has failed to add value for some time now.
It is remarkable to see (for this short, monthlong span) DVY do a full ~9% worse than VIG and OUSA, since the first two are so widely touted.
Of course it is mindblowing to see everything down like 26% in ~31 days, even after today's pop.
Wait'll this new state gets really serious. I just had a college friend die last night of covid19, healthy, 72, took ill 2w ago, on ventilator 12 days in a highly regarded NJ hospital, best care, seemed to be rallying, cardiac arrest in the middle of the night. One of the 780 US deaths thus far. His family and friends are stupefied and (of course) worse. Alan Finder helped me unpack my cartons of LPs and whiskey 55y ago into our freshman dorm.
Wait till we are discussing all this in a month or three or six, following the "president"'s Easter goal and back-to-work order.

Hi @David_Snowball, yes, my comment was about RPHYX, and I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that comment, since I know you've invested heavily in it.
In this crash, it has underperformed both vanilla bond funds like MWTRX and Vanguard's bond index fund, VBMFX, which is positive for the year. It has also underperformed over the medium and long terms.
It was supposed to offer minimal downside. As it turns out, in this stress situation, it has offered more downside than a total bond market index fund, while also underperforming the index by over 100 bps/year over the last 5 years.
I have enormous respect for you, so I am curious if you are rethinking your investment in this fund.

Hi jimlenz
You didn't pick a bad fund in normal market conditions, but; for the most part only bond funds with an overweight in AAA gov't. issues have fared "decently". And even the gov't. issues had problems for awhile.
This link is a composition view at Fidelity. Scroll down a bit to find "credit quality". About 69% of the holdings are rated BBB or lower. BBB is the edge of limited quality depending upon the quality of the issuing company. Example: Ford Motor has a boat load of BBB that is on the edge of higher quality "junk bond" rating.
The overview, for the most part, IMHO; is that cash flow to corporations is a big question mark going forward, which may impair many companies ability paying down debt. The Treasury, supposedly, is going to support some of this debt one way or another. How much this helps remains to be seen; and in particular how long economies are affected by the COVID-19 circumstance.
My two cents worth.
Catch

Jurrien Timmer is the director of global macro in Fidelity's Global Asset Allocation Division, specializing in global macro strategy and active asset allocation. In this article, he presented a balanced analysis on the future direction of the global market.

Key takeaways
The big questions are when will the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases peak and will the fiscal and monetary policy response be enough?
The significant drop in the stock market has been made significantly worse by the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, as well as forced deleveraging and a soaring dollar.
Earnings estimates for the next few quarters tumbled last week, and will likely fall further in the coming weeks.
While further US stock market declines are quite possible or even likely, my technical work suggests that the momentum of this decline may diminish in the weeks ahead.

https://fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/markets-sectors/stock-market-drops-2020

The securitized saga isn't over. VCFAX -3.1...SEMMX -2.95...ANGLX -1.4...DHEAX -2.25. DHEAX is even more unique with 80+% in IG rating bonds. VCFAX is about 50/50 IG/below IG. Slowly but surely they are going down.

Still own IOFIX. Found a recent article similar to Davfor concerning IOFIX sell-off:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-alphacentric/fund-manager-alphacentric-looks-to-raise-cash-as-coronavirus-bites-idUSKBN21A1PG
(similar excerpt about IOFIX in today's WSJ)

@MikeM and @expatsp you are right. However, RPHYX *was* touted as a cash substitute. For RSIVX I can take 100% of the blame.
Looking on the positive side, this market has taught me 2 things.
Don't effing buy what you don't understand. I still wanted to own some bonds and paid the price.
Diversifying with more long-short funds is not the same as diversifying with equity funds.
I own NCLIX and I own RMBFX at Schwab. One doing the trick, one not. i expect to reduce one fund, no guesses for which.

Ha! I used the quote recently.
Just checked AUM ... $1.7B, down from $4.5B. The irony is that today's level is where they were when they told me they were "day to day" on inflows.
I loved these guys, their firm, and their strategy. The AUM growth was one of my few complaints. That, and the fact the they were just the subadvisor to AlphaCentric, which has an awful record and management.
But Garrison Point seemed to be left alone and there was no fall-off in performance with AUM. So, they seemed to handle it ... until this.
It's had a remarkable five-year run.
Talk about hiding volatility in NAV ... a whole new level.
I wonder if GP had been its own advisor if the story would have ended differently.
c

@FD1000. Thank goodness. But I'm still reeling. c