Hi, guy!
Welcome.
And no.
That's the official answer, David's and mine. RSIVX has the potential for substantially more NAV volatility than does RPHYX. That's mostly a "mark to market" artifact. As you probably know, a fund's NAV is determined by answering the question, "what could I get for each security in the portfolio if I sold them today at 3:30 Eastern?" That's easy to determine with some securities; called "highly liquid," they're actively traded securities for which there are lots of buyers and lots of sellers and more-or-less reliable prices. It's a bit tougher for others ("illiquid securities," which might be rarely or never traded - imagine an entire apartment building owned by the REOC) and unreliable for still others ("distressed securities" or "special situations," where short term events distort the market for a particular security). Nonetheless, the rules say that a manager (i.e., a service hired by an advisor) must value every security every day.

It's also possible that one of the fund's securities might implode, but that worries me a bit less since David and his team are specialists in valuing this stuff and no individual position controls much of the portfolio.

There may well be periods where David could not sell some of his portfolio securities for - say - a tenth of their actual value. That doesn't bother him (or me) because he doesn't need to sell them (and I don't need to sell shares of the fund). It could, however, be a problem for someone with a very short time horizon; it's not inconceivable that some market gyration could trigger a mark-to-market drop in the fund's NAV, meaning that you might end up selling your shares at a loss.

You might want to listen to the conference call with David. Navigate using the top tabs to The Best, Featured Funds, RiverPark Short Term High Yield then check about two-thirds of the way down the page. David addresses his recommended holding period but I don't have my notes from the call here. He says something like, "if you're willing to wait a year (or some slightly longer period), we're comfortable that you'll be made whole. For shorter periods, there are no guarantees.

That's not highly probable but it's a serious distinction between this fund as RPHYX, much less a money market.
Okay: all of that having been said, my own "cash management" funds are T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income (which posted a drawdown of 15% during the '07-'09 meltdown) and the two RiverPark funds. Why? Because I'm really pretty frugal, I live well below my means and save a lot. My non-retirement portfolio (roughly half cash and bonds, half stocks) could drop by half and I'd still have the ability to cover six months of living expenses and medical bills from it. As a result, I'm more willing to absorb market risk than to book negative real returns.
Hope that doesn't muddy the waters too badly,
David

Hi Swede,
First, we wish you well going forward with your Mother and the circumstances.
You have and will receive more great thoughts from the fine folks here. The great value of numerous viewpoints that sometimes are overlooked during stressful times.
Below is a form we put together about 10 years ago, to document specific information that would be needed by others as the result of a serious medical situation or worse event. We have this form in MS Word format so that we make changes as needed. We have since added and deleted a few items, but this is our rough blank draft. We have copies of this saved on paper, and electronically; and the info is also distributed to brothers and sisters.
There will be items in this form of no value for you/your Mother; and of course other items you may need to add. Others here may be able to add suggestions for other items.
Many of the items are fairly common, but easy to overlook when busy thinking about everything. If you copy the below form and paste into a "word" document, you will then be able to manipulate data as needed by you.
Lastly, I personally feel some of the most critical and missing information about other family members is who to contact, acct. numbers and where are physical documents for proof of ownership or other legal circumstance(s). Also, are beneficiary changes and joint accounts (checking/savings) up to date.
You may also discover forms online related to this type of documenting or provided by an estate/tax attorney or CPA.
The document list is not all inclusive, but hopefully a starting point for your thoughts about what needs to be included.
Sincerely,
Catch
........................................................................................................................................
PERSONAL INFO FOR (NAMES)
UPDATED/EFFECTIVE DATE = AUGUST 17, 2003
NOTE !!!!! The below listings would be used in conjunction with any of the following legal forms that should be established for and by you for yourself and family members:
WILL, TRUST (there are many trust styles; i.e., revocable living trust, irrevocable, etc.) GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR PROPERTY AND MONIES, LIVING WILL AND/OR DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE and HIPAA authorization and release form (allowing release of pertinent private medical information to authorized persons)
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS:
*** full legal name, ssn#
DRIVER LICENSE #’S:
*** full legal name
CREDIT CARDS, DEBIT CARDS:
*** issuers, card numbers, their phone #’s, etc.
INSURANCE POLICIES:
-health
-home
-auto
-life
RECIPIENT/BENEFICIARY MONIES FROM OTHERS OR A BUSINESS:
-are you listed in someone’s will/trust/business agreement that should be documented here?
PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY: ALL ASSETS
-real estate, cars, and personal property (collections, artwork, boats, jet skis and anything else one considers that others need to be aware).
ALSO indicate as to what property is PAID IN FULL and OWNED
- deeds
LIABILITIES:
-home mortgage
-home equity loans
-auto loans
-all other monies owed to a third party
* provide all pertinent information regarding these liabilities: what, where, who, etc.
PERSONAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS:
401K, 403B, 457, IRA’S, COMPANY PENSION PLAN:
*vested company pension plans should be set with a spousal/beneficiary statement
CHILD/CHILDREN ACCTS (EDUCATIONAL, 529, SAVINGS, ETC.):
ANNUITIES:
BROKERAGE/STOCK/MUTUAL FUND ACCT:
Note: contact info…phone numbers, acct numbers, etc.
CHECKING/SAVING ACCOUNTS:
Note: whose names are on the accounts???
SAFE DEPOSIT BOX: location & box number
NOTE…..who has a signed contract for access and who has a key
PASSWORDS: home pc, pc documents, all online accounts
DOCUMENTS LOCATION (physical papers, etc.):
NOTE……indicate where these “original” documents are located
-check book, payment books (house payment, home equity, etc.)
-will, trust, power of attorney, living/medical will, guardianship (child)
-house deed/title
-auto titles
-cemetery plot/ownership documents
-IRS/State, previous tax year filings
-passports
-birth, marriage & related documents
-business/work required license
PHYSICIAN/DENTIST & related:
-preferred medical doctors and facility
-drug allergies
-allergies
-blood type
-immunizations
-brief medical history
EMPLOYER CONTACT INFO:
-human resources
-coworkers
CHILD’S SCHOOL & RELATED CONTACT INFO:
FAMILY/FRIEND CONTACT INFO (email, phone/mailing address):
CPA, ATTORNEY & related:
MEMBERSHIPS, SUBSCRIPTIONS (publications, societies, etc.):
LIST OF USUAL MONTHLY BILLS (phone, utilities, cable tv, etc.)
PETS (local vet contact info):
-deposition of orphaned pet(s)
GENERAL COMMENTS & INSTRUCTIONS related to this info listing:

Hello,
I know that the internet isn't the best place for advice, but I cannot find my mom any Fee only financial advisors in her area. What she is dealing with is way above my pay grade and it involves a possible six figure tax hit.
Here is her issue:
She is sixty two and just suffered from several strokes and simply can't work any longer. She is in management and the DR has warned against any/all stress because of her new found heart issue.
Most of her retirement is in company stock. As of the last statement the account value was 1.7 M - outside of tax shelter. See the issue? She has always been very independent and has been very uncomfortable talking about money matters with me until now. Now I find myself trying to figure out the best path for more diversification ( tons more ) and protect her from the sharks in the investment world. It seems that every "planner" I have talked with has tried to sell the idea of "A" share funds with no thought of the tax issue at hand. Making this situation even worse is I'm three States away.
She does have around 200G in her regular 401K. I simply can't believe how much she has invested in the company stock over the years. I guess this time it has worked out well...for now.

Reply to @catch22: I'm with you, I start with downside now long term in retirement.

That is good news, but given the terrible state of retirement readiness in this country, the really good news will be when those numbers at least triple and quadruple.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=635019

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/13/retirement/401k-balances/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Reply to @lord_nelson: This is probably not what you wanted to hear but with what appears to be your portfolio philosophy, forget about owning any of these for 15+ years. You will likely get a 7 year itch to replace even the ones that has served you well like PRBLX and/or some of these shiny new funds at the moment may no longer seem so, after a couple of years if they haven't actually crashed and burnt before then. :-)
The new ones being considered here are from good fund families with good managers but they just don't have the history to say how they will do as they gather assets and market conditions change. Even so, it may be fine if you have an active portfolio management strategy that has a plan to buy and sell based on some meaningful criterion, not what is shining recently. I am not sure you want shiny new funds as the core part of your portfolio.
I do not think it is smart to allocate more than 20% of your portfolio to funds as core holdings without a history unless you have a really small portfolio where it wouldn't make much difference. You may land up being disappointed on their performance over time or worse find that they have damaged your portfolio with underperformance in certain market conditions.
My recommendations are based on my rough guidelines here as a portfolio strategy that uses both index funds and active or specialty funds as appropriate for the stage you are in.
You have a 80% equity strategy with 20% in cash. This is fine if you are in accumulation phase with a small portfolio with a 25-30+ year timeframe or in the growth phase with a 15-25 year time frame. If the former, then I would forget active funds and get a diversified allocation with index funds. You dont need any hedging against market risk over that time frame, and it is difficult to find active funds that will overperform over a long period. At best they will underperform without any significant benefits. If you are in the latter growth stage, it might be useful to move 20% of your indexed core to specialty and allocation funds and over time increase the latter by adding more and more risk managed active funds as you get closer to your distribution years.
If you are in such a growth stage, keep the PRBLX as part of your core 60% or switch to a large cap blend index, supplement with a small blend index, an international index covering both DM and EM or separate DM and EM indices. Possibly in equal proportions in this 60%. Allocate 20% of the rest to sectors that have good beta performance and small amounts in it to shiny new funds just to satisfy your itch without harming your portfolio. You can even use the cash portion to include balanced/allocation funds for the full 40% and let them decide on cash. Initially start with high beta funds that are likely to over perform relative to the broad indices in the core (not their category indices) and slowly move them into more conservative funds with capital protection strategy as a glideslope to your retirement.
So, the questions you are asking about the funds other than PRBLX should really be in the 20% pot outside the core 60% and not trying to replace any fund in the core.
Be careful about use of volatility in evaluating new funds such as FMIJX. They can change very quickly as the fund enters some turbulence for its investment strategy. I don't think there is any justification to think FMIJX will necrssarily be a low volatility fund. It may turn out to be a great fund but hasn't proved itself as yet so shouldn't be part of core portfolio.

For retirement savers, Bogle is correct. Don't just do something, STAND there. I've made very few changes along the way. One has to be in touch with the news. But I think there's a difference between "market-timing" and adjusting to big-wave macro-trends.

Reply to @Guy:
Hi Guy,
Thank you for reading and replying to my post.
I honestly feel that I might be the least informed MFO member, who posts semi-regularly, to respond to your sensible question. Almost any frequent MFO contributor could construct a more meaningful and deeply researched active manager listing than I can generate.
Sometimes within the last year I concluded that the incremental reward/time commitment in identifying superior active mutual fund managers was not worth the effort in terms of my realized payoffs. This bottom-line conclusion is consistent with much academic research in this arena.
That’s not to say that my personal decision is in any way universal. Successful fund management does exist and careful research can isolate the winners from the losers. I believe that a few MFO participants are very proficient at this challenging task. It does demand time and constant monitoring. At this juncture in my retirement I am not prepared to make that commitment.
In the 1990s, 100 % of my mutual fund portfolio was actively managed. Today, about half is still invested with active managers, but about half is with Index products. Within one year, my plan is to convert the mix to a 20/80 passive-heavy fund/ETF allocation. I still enjoy the excitement and the challenge of the game.
Both academic and industry studies demonstrate the steep hill that active fund management must climb. As the number of actively managed funds in a portfolio increases and as the time horizon expands, the likelihood of outdistancing an equivalent passive portfolio sharply decreases towards single digit odds.
Active fund managers find it difficult to overcome their cost drag and changing market conditions. Investing policy, manager style, and fund size inertia elements make it hard to dynamically adjust to a rapidly evolving marketplace.
The historical record demonstrates that consistent outperformance by actively managed funds is mostly nonexistent among the mutual fund population. The Standard and Poors’ SPIVA and persistency scorecard reports document this failure over an impressive timeframe. Updated versions of these reports will be shortly released covering 2013 mutual fund management performance.
If I were searching for superior actively managed funds I would look for low costs and low portfolio turnover rates as guiding criteria. I would search for positive Alpha performance results over an extended timeframe, the longer the better (at least 5 years). I would seek high Information Ratios since a fund’s volatility detracts from overall wealth accumulation. I equate positive Alpha and Information Ratio as two measures of managerial skill.
I would accept the proposition that a fund manager will not be successful each and every year; bad times and bad decisions happen so patience is a virtue. Bill Miller is an excellent illustration of an active fund manager who would test patience to a maximum.
Since you have persevered and have endured my numerous investing nuances, I am now prepared to divulge several of my favorite fund managers. I claim no prescience here, but I do currently own the following array of actively managed funds; in fact, I have owned them since the mid-1990s.
From Fidelity, I hold FCNTX and FLPSX. From Vanguard, I have sizable positions with VWINX and VWELX. And from Dodge and Cox, I have DODBX and DODGX.
I make no eureka assertions relative to the wisdom of these choices. They have served me well for over two decades. Most likely I will retain these products when I finally get my mix of actively managed funds down to my 20 % goal level. Note that some of these funds are team managed so superstars are not a necessary prerequisite.
I find these choices adequate for my purposes; they surely might not be appropriate for your goals, risk profile, or time horizon.
I hope that some MFO members, who are more diligent, more qualified, and far more current at exploring the active fund management cohort, respond to your question. I’m sure they will provide deployable specific recommendations and some useful selection guidelines.
Best Wishes.

Reply to @Desota: Thanks a lot - and happy retirement to you. (Using all caps for CAIBX and AMECX should allow others to link directly to one of the trackers embedded here.)
Regards

Hi Mark,
You asked about how John Bogle arrived at his assertion that investors leave approximately 80 % of achievable rewards on the table.
The power of compounding is the simple answer. Saint John arrived at his startling number from his favorite topic: the excessive costs imposed by actively managed mutual funds, and the incremental additional costs coupled to their trading frequency and market research. These continuing charges are also subject to the tyranny of compounding over time, and operate in a wealth robbing way.
So, Bogle’s analysis is based on accumulating shortfalls over time. He gets his shortfall by using a 65 year investor timeframe that includes both an earning phase and a retirement phase. He postulates an active fund cost of 2.5 % over the entire timeframe such that the investor only receives 5.5 % annual return from an equity marketplace that produces an annual 8.0 % return.
Now it’s a simple calculation to get his critical number. It is the ratio of (1.055/1.080) taken to the 65th power. That’s 0.218 or about 80 % (actually 78 %) taken from the possible equity investment table.
Bogle used the 65 year timeframe to emphasize his point. That’s just a tad excessive.
Here is the Link that documents his assumptions:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101381010
But his analysis only viewed the issue as a penalty associated with fund management costs. The real world issue is exasperated by poor individual investor timing errors and investor misbehavior. The DALBAR studies have documented this misbehavior for many years.
Here is a Link to an early 2013 news article that characterizes investor returns for timeframes extending to two decades that was extracted from the DALBAR data sets:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomanderson/2013/03/28/fund-investors-lag-as-sp-500-nears-all-time/
It is not a pretty picture. The DALBAR study shows that the average private investor has underperformed the equity market by a huge margin over the 20 year time horizon. During that period, the investor gained a disappointing 4.25 % annually while the S&P 500 delivered 8.21 % per year. Therefore, the investor recovered (1.0425/1.0821) taken to the 20th power, or only 47.4 % of the equity market rewards.
If you consider the same 65 year time-span that Saint John used, the ratio becomes a ruinous 8.86 % of the accessible market returns. The average investor suffers greatly from both the penalty of active fund management costs and practices, and his own foolish behavior.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that we investors seem to be slowly learning over time. The most recent 3-year DALBAR data summary shows an investor performance improvement. More recently, we captured a higher fraction of the market returns as follows for the 3-year timeframe: (1.0763/1.1087) taken to the 3rd power yields 91.48 % of the market return. If that ratio is maintained for a 20 year period, the investor recovers 55.3 % of equity rewards. That too is devastating to end wealth, but it is an improved prospect over the 20-year performance data.
Of course, the obvious question is, why not just buy the S&P 500 Index fund or a diversified portfolio of Index products? Index products are gaining momentum among both the private and the institutional classes of investors.
DALBAR will be updating their survey in March, and will release results that include 2013 data at that time.
Compounding is so powerful a factor that economists and real estate wizards believe that we overpaid the Indian tribes when we purchased Manhattan island from them centuries ago with trinkets valued at roughly 25 dollars. I’m not sure I trust that analysis.
I hope this satisfies your question.
Best Wishes.

Reply to @hank: I was thinking the same thing, and here's a link that you already posted today, again. Don't just DO something, STAND there. Or maybe, "BUY something."
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discussions-3/#/discussion/11105/john-bogle-retirement-investors-leave-80-on-the-table

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-bogle-retirement-investors-leave-80-on-the-table-2014-02-06/print?guid=B73B20D9-53E6-4940-8FA5-ACB7F05BA1FC

What I meant by not putting one's eggs in a single basket ...
I was not talking about risk (I regard TIAA Traditional as pretty close to riskless), but rather maintaining flexibility. Until reading some other posts here, I would have said that I place a bit too much emphasis on flexibility (albeit without being fanatical). Now I'm not so sure :-)
Flexibility has its place, where there is a need for it. A fully liquid investment offers total flexibility, but with costs. The most obvious is that the longer a commitment one makes with an investment, the higher the expected rate of return (think CDs). There are others.
A certain measure of this flexibility is perceived, not actual. Down the road, one will have expenses that one must prepare for. So some assets must be locked up for future use. (The ING commercial with the orange dollar bills comes to mind.) And (unlike others) I see no problem with allocating at least this much toward TIAA Traditional (after adjusting for SS, pensions, etc.).
The question is: how much money do you need now, how much do you need over the next ten years (or ten years starting at some point in the future), and how much flexibility do you want with what's left over?
If you don't mind receiving (and perhaps spending) that money only gradually over time (a decade), you can put more of it in the Traditional annuity. But don't overdo it.
One generally does need some flexibility to tap resources more quickly in case of unexpected events (trip of a lifetime, medical emergency, etc.) That's a big part of why one allocates part of one's portfolio to cash and bonds. (You might need cash when the stock market is down.) One doesn't want to lose that virtue of one's cash/bond allocation by locking it all up.
If it helps, you might think of the Traditional annuity as a "10 year certain only" payout. That's a payout schedule from an annuity where you are guaranteed 10 years - no more, no less. Despite BobC's disaffection above regarding the ten year lock up, even he has acknowledged that "Immediate fixed annuities have a place in some folks' retirement arsenal".

Lord, the TD guy says to live of div stream. Great. So I am starting retirement and have saved like a beaver and have a mil and fortunately need only 40k, plus 40k from SS. (I wish.) So I put my million nervously into SCHD, which pays out around 2.5%. No reinvestment. What's wrong with this scenario? Lots. Maybe he thinks everyone wants to leave a lot to heirs?

From the article some interesting comments quoted here:
Peter Schiff: "I am a 50-year-old guy with a family, but I would go with all equities, precious metals and little bonds. I’d buy more gold stocks and bullion because of how cheap they are. Also, buy dividend-paying foreign equities and get into emerging markets."
Charles Brandes: "I don’t know if your readers would believe this, but if you have a period of time for your investments shorter than three to five years, you’re not an investor. You’re a speculator."
Satish Rai: "People haven’t figured out that they need to take on a different risk profile. They believe that, as you get closer to retirement, you should shift money from equities to fixed income. That’s all based on the 30-year bull market in bonds we’ve been through, not looking forward. In this environment—in which interest rates are low—fixed income is going to give you 0% capital appreciation."
James O'Shaughnessy: "Extrapolating the bond market’s fantastic performance since 1981 into the future. We think long-term bonds will be going into a multidecade bear market, and we’re urging investors to invest only in short-term bonds. My entire adult life has been lived in a bull market for bonds. But bonds can be very risky, especially over long periods. If you’d started investing in 20-year bonds in 1940, by 1981, you would have had about a 63% real total loss on the portfolio. I’m not saying don’t buy bonds; I’m saying be careful which bonds you buy."

Reply to @msf:

The rate itself fluctuates, and will rise as interest rates rise generally. This may be the most secure, best paying GIC or stable value investment around, and is great for one's cash/fixed income portion of one's portfolio.

msf,
Thanks for your informative post. I'm not clear on what future interest rates to expect on money deposited in TIAA Trad today. (Does the rate track the 10-year treasury? Obviously, the current TIAA Trad rate is higher than the 10-yr.) If the TIAA-Trad is that great a deal, maybe I should use it for all my overall fixed-income allocation and hold equities in my taxable (non-retirement) accounts.
With the TIAA-Trad in a 403b account, it sounds like there's less risk from bad timing than is associated with the bond portion of Target-date funds. Obviously, when one buys a target date fund, one is assuming interest rate risk associated with the bond portion of the portfolio.

I second msf's suggestion. TIAA resets rates annually. My dumbest investment decision ever was putting 50% of my retirement money in TIAA Traditional, starting in 1984 when I joined Augustana. It was at the start of The Great Bull and a 100% stock allocation for a 28 year old would have been brilliant but the '70s were cruel to stock investors and the college's (old, cautious) business office guy couldn't even understand why anyone but a fool would invest in stocks. My second-dumbest investment decision ever was selling that annuity in the mid- to late '90s, a conversion which took (I believe) 10 years to play out. The best of my annual contracts promised something like 8.25% appreciation, annually, for life. But since the stock market returned 18% annually ...
Nuts.
David

TIAA-CREF Traditional is just what it says - a traditional, old school GIC, from one of the three(?) AAA-rated insurance companies in the US. (Well, it would be AAA, but it seems companies can't be rated higher than their country, and there's that S&P Treasury rating.)
The lock up is not on the rate, but on withdrawals, which must be via annuitization or ten annual payments. The rate itself fluctuates, and will rise as interest rates rise generally. This may be the most secure, best paying GIC or stable value investment around, and is great for one's cash/fixed income portion of one's portfolio.
You may get better responses over at M*'s TIAA-CREF board, where the participants are often exactly that - plan participants.
Product description/rules:
https://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/products-services/retirement/supplemental/traditional
Rates: https://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/tcfpi/investment/profile?symbol=47933632