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.

"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.)

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.

@MJG

We are all greedy, lazy bastards. Wall Street is even more so. That doesn't make them evil. They are just more money motivated than we are.

cyn·i·cism ˈsinəˌsizəm/noun
noun: cynicism; noun: Cynicism
1. an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest
Your statement is the height of it, but worse, I don't think you actually believe what you're saying. I often see you posting patriotic comments and footage about America's troops, etc. Do you think they're all "greedy, lazy bastards" or willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater good of our country and humanity? I think you are rationalizing bad behavior on Wall Street with a reductive specious binary argument when the spectrum of bad behavior--of the greed in this case--matters a great deal. In fact, your argument sounds a lot like this one:

Yes, everybody is greedy to a degree, but there are limits, lines, that to have a civil society individuals and institutions should not cross. Wall Street has often crossed that line.

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

"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.

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