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.

From the St. Louis Fed (reporting BLS data), using 1967 as baseline, the estimated CPI for 2021 is 792.5. The CPI for 1861 was 27.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1800-
That would make the inflation adjusted value of $800 equal to $800 x 792.5/27 = $23,481.48.

Source: https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1850

How much would a $50,000 investment in RPHYX, expense ratio of 1.05 lose over a 10 year period compared to RPHIX expense ratio of .90? RPHIX would have a transaction fee of approximately $50 at Schwab.

Bobpa,
FWIW, I put RPHIX and RPHYX, on the M* Interactive Performance Chart, and for the total existence period (9/30/2010 through 06/11/2021), the chart shows total return for an initial $10,000 investment as $13,632 for RPHIX and $13,237 for RPHYX. That is a difference of $395, multiplied by 5 to get the $50,000 investment, and it equals a total difference of $1975 more for RPHIX over the history of the funds. Trying to get down to the impact of a $50 transaction fee, in 2010, is beyond me, since I don't think M* tries to guess what the transaction fees, if any, are at the many different brokerages--which often negotiate transaction fees differently for different investors (I pay $25 transaction fee at Schwab, per a negotiated account opening, along with some extra cash that I got from Schwab to open an account over a designated amount)

When did the U.S. first impose a federal personal income tax?

On August 5, 1861, President Lincoln imposes the first federal income tax by signing the Revenue Act. Strapped for cash with which to pursue the Civil War, Lincoln and Congress agreed to impose a 3 percent tax on annual incomes over $800.
Congress repealed Lincoln’s tax law in 1871, but in 1909 passed the 16th Amendment, which set in place the federal income-tax system used today. Congress ratified the 16th Amendment in 1913.

lincoln-imposes-first-federal-income-tax
Made permanent by Taft:
https://history.com/news/income-tax-howard-taft

@Bobpa : As per Chuck. Retail$1283 VS Inst. $1108 + $50 = $1158 You can take it from here.
Stay Kool, Derf

How much would a $50,000 investment in RPHYX, expense ratio of 1.05 lose over a 10 year period compared to RPHIX expense ratio of .90? RPHIX would have a transaction fee of approximately $50 at Schwab.

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 : Did you listen to this weeks Wealthtrack ? Mr. Rosenberg seems to think 30 year U.S. treasuries may be the way to make some money. This seems to be the opposite to CLMAX. Any comments welcome, from anyone.
Stay Kool, Derf

@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?

@msf
I disagree that there is an adequate way to "tax" unrealized gains, that would not end up hurting the middle class and upper middle class more ( at least proportionally) than billionaires. So much more of the "billionaires" wealth is in non publicly traded vehicles and items that are hard to value at all ( Art and collectibles) that trying to value them for tax purposes would be almost impossible.
You cannot spend unrealized gains. People have claimed that Billionaires can borrow money against them to avoid paying taxes without data to show this really happens.
I have never heard of "unrealized income". You either receive income or you don't. There is no way I know of to realize income without declaring it except in an IRA.
I believe this issue is a diversion, taking our attention away from practical and easy fixes to the tax system.
The IRS budget has been gutted in the last decades, making it very unlikely that high income returns are audited at all. This is easy to fix with more staff and more audits, which would go a long way to identify unreported benefits that should be taxed and hidden tax shelters
"Carried Interest" is just one example of simple changes in certain tax items that benefit mainly the wealthy that would raise a large amount of money.
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 or who have seen their 1980's $100,000 house become a $1,000,000 "mansion"

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.

Looking through the comments here and doing some more reading this morning leaves me thinking it is good the Fed is taking a go slow approach. Here are a few takeaways....
A Center For Strategic and International Studies (CFSAIS) report indicates most of the worlds central banks have reached the experimental or pilot development phase of their examinations of CBDC use. The report indicates "The case for CBDC is based in large part on the underlying technology’s potential to improve payments efficiency and lower transaction costs, particularly for cross-border payments, as well as to bolster system integrity, spur financial innovation, and improve access to financial services."
The CFSAIS report also suggests that China's digital currency electronic payment (DCEP) program is significantly "motivated by concern that private digital payment platforms could displace traditional banks—posing a threat to financial stability and official sector oversight of economic and financial activity in China." Relatedly, a recent Asia Times article notes that "DCEP serves as a tool for the Chinese government to regain control over domestic financial crime, stabilize the financial system and protect China’s national security. Unlike many anonymous and decentralized cryptocurrencies, the DCEP is monitored and backed by the PBOC, affording China’s leadership supreme control over all transactions."
Proponents of a Fed based digital dollar think it would provide the unbanked with access to virtual dollars. However, a Bank Policy Institute (BPI) report suggests the banking community doubts the potential financial inclusion benefit would wind up being widespread. That report also suggests that fear of crytocurriences and stablecoins, widespread fear of China's DCEP advances, and European fear of US control over the global financial system are important motivators behind current central banker focus on CBDCs.

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.

Thanks for that. I'm 56% bonds of all sorts, these days. But EM in my portf is tiny.

Old_Joe : I think you had a price increase of 12.5 % , without paying more !
Enjoy the treat, Derf

"...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.")

Like many teenagers, Ronak Davé enjoys the videogame Roblox. But he doesn’t play much these days, preferring to trade the stock instead. He recently sold a stake in Roblox after holding it for a few weeks, notching a 25% gain, or about $200.
“I saw a pullback after looking at the technical patterns,” Davé says. “I noticed some resistance coming back and thought it would go down.” At 16, Davé isn’t your typical trader. A high school junior outside Chicago, he started trading a year ago and now spends a few hours a day on the markets ...
Fidelity investments introduced a youth account product last month for those ages 13 to 17. The accounts come with a debit card, unlimited trading, and access to nearly the entire US market - overseen voluntarily by parents …
Fidelity’s youth accounts are like a standard brokerage account with training wheels. Teens can trade all they want, but Fidelity restricts the types of stocks to U.S.listed companies, doesn’t allow options or margin trading, and recommends capping annual deposits at $30,000.
Barron’s June 14, 2021