"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

It probably doesn't help much, but if at some time you have a spare $100K lying around (yeah, sure), you can gain entry into the lower cost shares and then let the balance slide down.
I agree with you that the cost is ridiculously high (for my tastes, a smidgeon high even for an equity fund), but I give the management credit for being able to execute a unique strategy that is not cheap to do and IMHO doesn't scale well. Hence the closure and the fairly small AUM, which adds to cost as a percentage of AUM.
Funds typically pay 0.40% to brokerages like Schwab and Fidelity to list NTF. That's where the 0.25% 12b-1 of the retail shares is going. Some people invest directly and so the fund doesn't have to pay an extra 0.40% on their money. With "luck", their 12b-1 fees added to those of investors who go through brokerages might be enough to cover the 0.40%. If not, the management company pays the difference out of pocket, so it keeps its cut high enought to cover that plus a decent profit.
So when one complains that fund X isn't available NTF, remember that this fact is saving you money in the long term.
The fund is required to charge all investors the same fee for the same share class regardless of channel (direct or brokerage). This is part of the appeal of "clean" shares. The fund charges a bare bones fee (just management and a little overhead), and it's up to the distributor or broker to add its costs in. You'll get to pay for the services you get, through the channel you use, regardless of how other people buy their shares.

This fund is intriguing and unusual. But isn't the expense ratio awfully high? I'd like to know the opinions of those who post here. This morning I asked the same question of River Park at the 212 phone number. He explained that they were small, that some of the er $ went to the sub advisor, and that a lot went to brokerages like Schwab etc. But that left me wondering: since the fund opening is only if dealing directly with the fund, why should an investor pay the fees to a brokerage that is not being used or even available for use? (I know I know. it wouldn't be fair to those who are already share holders if the er was lowered for new investors)
By the way I telephoned the fund at the 888 number to see if both classes of shares were now open. The feller at the other end seemed unaware that this fund had re-opened. He asked some others in the office and confirmed that both classes were open but that the Institutional share minimum was $100,000 whereas the Investor share minimum was $1000. The person I spoke to at the 212 number was aware and very well-informed but he said the Investor share minimum was $2500. Practically speaking the discrepancy is not important since if I decide to put some $ in this fund it would be more than $2500. But $100,000? 'fraid I don't have that kind of cash just lying around.
Any and all thoughts welcome. Thanks!
-Ben

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?

It's been 3.5-4.5% every year except 2012, which is why I suggested the range. The manager didn't seem appalled by it.

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.

Right. It's part of a cash-management portfolio. Roughly 3.5-4.5% a year with negligible volatility.
It's not appropriate to benchmark to the HY group. The argument appears in both of our profiles (2011, 2012) of the fund. The five-year correlation between RPHYX and three possible HY benchmark funds (FAGIX, HYG, VWEHX) is 0.6. It has a higher correlation to, oh, the Vanguard Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund than to high-yield funds.
In 2015, the fund returned 1.22%. If you want to compare it to the HY group, that's a top 3% performance. PIMCO's attempt at a cash-management fund (Short Asset Investment PAIAX, which follows as a fund that strategy PIMCO uses for managing "cash" in their mutual funds) made 0.32% that same year. Its best absolute-return year and worst relative-return year were both 2012; high yield bonds were up 15% and RPHYX made 4.4% (because it's weakly correlated to the HY market) and trailed 99% of them (because it's not appropriate to benchmark to the HY group).
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.
David

FYI: Depending upon which article you read, active stock management is either dying, dead or making a comeback.
The truth, as usual, is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-05/don-t-mourn-the-death-of-stock-picking-just-yet

@MFO Members: RPHYX performance record, I'm not impressed !
Regards,
Ted
YTD= 97 Percentile
1-Yr.=99 " "
3-Yr.=83 " "
5-Yr.-97 " "
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=RPHYX&region=usa&culture=en-US

The response you will get is that it is mischaracterized as a high yield fund by Morningstar. And I tend to agree. But what is not mentioned is how it will do worse when junk bonds perform worse ala 2015 and vice versa ala 2012. So there is a correlation. What I don't get though is all the love for a fund with a 3 and 5 year annualized return under 3%. By the very nature of this fund you will never get rich! It sure beats a money market so can understand using it in lieu of cash and can understand using it in retirement.

@MFO Members: RPHYX performance record, I'm not impressed !
Regards,
Ted
YTD= 97 Percentile
1-Yr.=99 " "
3-Yr.=83 " "
5-Yr.-97 " "
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=RPHYX&region=usa&culture=en-US

Hi, Derf.
No, the "beating" came at Mr. Sherman's other fund, RiverPark Strategic Income. Things went poorly with two positions at once, which causes a sustained dip in performance. RPHYX's maximum drawdown by 0.5% in August 2015. RSIVX's maximum drawdown occurred in February 2016, with a peak to trough drop of 7.6%. It's up 13.4% since then.
David

For what interest it holds, RiverPark and the Cohanzick folks have been under considerable, consistent and understandable pressure to re-open RPHYX/RPHIX. It has the highest Sharpe ratio in existence and very reliably does what it promises with negligible (not "no," just "negligible") volatility. Both of those parties have refused to reopen because it would compromise their ability to execute the strategy.
They've now been able to move $150 million or so out of RPHYX and into what Mr. Schaja refers to as "private label funds" at Cohanzick; those fiunds will pursue a somewhat different investment strategy than Short-Term High Yield, which creates additional space for investors interested in the fund. As with other managers (Seafarer, for instance), RiverPark pursued the "direct purchase" as a tool for managing inflows (and, implicitly, to keep people from gaming the system).
Mr. Schaja guesses that the fund might remain open for a couple months, but that's going to be determined by flows.
David

While I also have the impression that most (i.e. more than 50%) of fund families reopen funds through all channels, limited reopenings are not unusual. For example, Sequoia Fund SEQUX, T. Rowe Price Health Sciences PRHSX, Vanguard Capital Opportunity VHCOX.
Often funds do the reverse - go from being completely open to limiting new accounts to direct investments. American Century Midcap Value ACMVX, Wellington VWELX (since then completely closed), etc.

Click here
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/the-amount-of-etf-shares-being-traded-has-eclipsed-u-s-gdp
Then click here:
sifma.org/factbook/
The amount of speculation--paper trading hands--versus the amount of actual capital raised to ostensibly grow business (or to buy back stock and not grow business) is staggering. Just the ETF volume alone is about nine times the total amount of capital raised and larger than the U.S. GDP, and that doesn't include volume on individual stocks and bonds. If one believes in buy and hold investing and that market timing is impossible as I believe folks like MJG have claimed this is not a productive use of resources. It is one trader selling an already existing share of Microsoft stock to another who then turns around and sells it to another and another ad infinitum without providing Microsoft any additional capital to grow its business. Speculation has become Wall Street's primary business, while raising new capital is secondary.

MJG writes about 1792, as if Wall Street served the same function today as it did then. Some part of it does, and if Wall Street kept to that knitting, you wouldn't be seeing some of the posts here. But let's not confuse that with the last four decades of financial "innovation".
We can start with Drexel Burnham Lambert.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/junk-bond1.htm
Even the insurance industry prohibits insuring a life in which you're not related. This is called the insurable interest doctrine. But not Wall Street.
"When the British Parliament passed the Life Assurance Act in 1774, it acknowledged that the opportunity to insure a stranger would create a 'mischievous kind of gaming' that allowed one person to profit from the death of another." Just for those who like financial history going back to the 1700s.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/04/can_i_buy_life_insurance_on_a_stranger.html
But Wall Street in its infinite wisdom decided that trading credit default swaps that guaranteed bond payments was just fine, even if you have no interest in the income stream. CDSs as they became to be traded in the past couple of decades have no apparent use, at least in MJG's 1792 sense.
http://www.robinskaplan.com/resources/articles/credit-default-swaps-from-protection-to-speculation
See also, FT (2010): Call for ban on CDS speculation.
Rolling Stone pretty well wraped it up in one of its intro paragraphs on Bain Capital in 2012:
"Romney wants us to believe that critics of private equity are against capitalism. They’re not. They’re against a predatory system created and perpetuated by Wall Street solely to pump its own profits."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-private-equity-firms-like-bain-really-are-the-worst-of-capitalism-20120523

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