And here is the link to RPHIX/RPHYX. https://riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/rpsthyf/commentary/RiverPark-Cohanzick_2Q24_Shareholder_Letter.pdf

Comparing RPHYX vs. CBUDX, these 2 funds have very similar returns and SD.
The Riverpark fund offers the (RPHIX) institutional class that is ideal for longer-term investors - just pony up the TF.
At 9-30-2024, Fido shows that RPHIX has a 30-day yield of only 4.3%. Seemed kind of low. Weighted ave coupon was 6.3%.
CBLDX is more volatile, but with more yield.

Risk ! If memory serves me, RPHIX started out with a NAV of $10.00 or at least the brother version RPHYX $ amount to start the first buy was at $10.00.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not good at links. I'll try again. If not, just input the funds shown to stockcharts.com
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?RPHYX,FLRN,THOPX,CSOIX,ICMUX,WCPNX

If M* can be trusted:

Sometimes a picture paints a clearer picture @Crash. WCPNX has more volatility than others with less return to show for it. I'm sure it is a fine fund, Weitz is a good bond house. It's just that M*s glowing statistics compared to pictorial comparisons may not jive.
Hopefully this link works. It has examples of a couple low volatility funds the poster was looking for, and a few of multisector/intermediate funds with low volatility trends. My preference is the straightest trend lines available.
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?RPHYX,FLRN,THOPX,CSOIX,ICMUX,WCPNX

@MikeM - exactly what I was going to say! Along with FLRN there's also FLOT. They're not quite indistinguishable, but pretty close.
The knock against IG floating rate funds is that they don't do as well in falling interest rate environments. Or so I've read. And until this month (Oct) WCPNX was slightly outperforming them YTD, though not now.
A question is what you are looking for. RPHYX/RPHIX may be unique in how it invests. This results in after-expense returns that are extremely steady and IMHO worth the cost. Funds like FLRN and FLOT invest more traditionally and have slightly higher volatility and slightly lower returns. They are still well within the ultra-short duration and volatility ranges.
WCPNX is a traditional short term bond fund. As such, it can get jostled by market disruptions (see, e.g. 2022 and March 2020). The floating rate funds also got hit in March 2020, a market "blip" that affected pretty much everything. They held up nicely in 2022. Also, Schwab imposes a fee if you sell WCPNX within 90 days of purchase.
So WCPNX is a good fund if you're anticipating holding it for awhile (at least a year), but perhaps there are better choices if you are looking very short term.
Be advised that WCPNX changed name and strategy at the end of 2016. It had been Weitz Short-Intermediate Income Fund.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison - RPHIX (benchmark), WEFIX, FLRN, FLOT

I believe RPHYX is no TF at Schwab, but that doesn't help you with the higher than normal ER (1.19%). I don't think to much about the ER since, even being on the high side, the risk reward is so good. FWIW, I've also held FLRN (SPDR Bloomberg Investment Grade Floating Rate) for years as a steady-eddy income fund, though this one has had a couple hiccups along the way.

As the old joke goes: The secret ofcomedyistiming.
Bought CBLDX on September 12 for 9.76$ per share. It closed Friday at 9.7549. So it could be around for a while. If M* can be believed, it's return of .05% last week was less than SPAXX's return of .07. M* also had VRIG and USFR ahead of SPAXX, CBLDX, RSIIX, RPHYX. CSOIX was a winner last week, but a loser by too much for me in 2022.
Things liable to go if we start poorly on Monday are TBUX, USTB, XONE, and WSHNX.

I'm just looking for some things to beat SPAXX

My goodness. No jumping needed. Any of the Riverpark or Crossbridge funds have been doing that since the start of 2023 with the smoothest ride you can ask for (RSIVX, CBLDX for example). Heck, even the ultra-conservative RPHYX has done as well or better than CDs and MMs. Take a look at CSOAX/CSOIX for another smooth ride with a bit more horsepower. 5-star and a great owl fund. I'm sure there are many other examples too.
MM's, treasuries and CD's have been great if you want zero risk, and that is understandable for many here. But more lucrative options may have opened up many many months ago.

I'm already underwater with CBLDX.
I have a limited appetite for junk.

@WABAC You seem to have as good a handle on bonds as anyone here. So surprised by your comment on CBLDX. On a total return basis it is at an all time high. Or am I missing something. I hold a position in CBLDX as a sub for cash - at least for now.
https://stockcharts.com/sc3/ui/?s=CBLDX

I'm just looking for some things to beat SPAXX

My goodness. No jumping needed. Any of the Riverpark or Crossbridge funds have been doing that since the start of 2023 with the smoothest ride you can ask for (RSIVX, CBLDX for example). Heck, even the ultra-conservative RPHYX has done as well or better than CDs and MMs. Take a look at CSOAX/CSOIX for another smooth ride with a bit more horsepower. 5-star and a great owl fund. I'm sure there are many other examples too.
MM's, treasuries and CD's have been great if you want zero risk, and that is understandable for many here. But more lucrative options may have opened up many many months ago.

I'm already underwater with CBLDX.
I have a limited appetite for junk.

I'm just looking for some things to beat SPAXX

My goodness. No jumping needed. Any of the Riverpark or Crossbridge funds have been doing that since the start of 2023 with the smoothest ride you can ask for (RSIVX, CBLDX for example). Heck, even the ultra-conservative RPHYX has done as well or better than CDs and MMs. Take a look at CSOAX/CSOIX for another smooth ride with a bit more horsepower. 5-star and a great owl fund. I'm sure there are many other examples too.
MM's, treasuries and CD's have been great if you want zero risk, and that is understandable for many here. But more lucrative options may have opened up many many months ago.

What's more fun than complaining about kids these days? I say: Giving the indolent ne'er do wells advice they won't take.
Here are what I call Grumpy Grampy's Simple Portfolios for Widows, Orphans, and Kids that probably don't wash behind their ears. Can Grumpy Gramp's portfolios beat the clones? Let's find out together.
The first mimics the beta of the ICMUX/FPACX: Dinky linky.
And this portfolio mimics the beta of the LCORX/RPHYX portfolio: YADL.
Disclaimer: I am not a grandfather or an investment advisor.
Edit to add: PV does not seem to be accounting for fixed annuals contributions of 6500$. Suggestions and solutions are welcomed

Time to bring out Devo's replicating portfolio exercise.
A 50/50 portfolio of LCORX and RPHYX generate a beta of .26 over ten years. So the clone is 26% SPY and 74% the 3 month T-Bill. Here is the result: Dinky linky.
The second portfolio recommends a 50/50 split of FPACX and ICMUX. The clone works out to 46% SPY and 54% 3 month t-bills. Here is the result of that run: YADL.
What advice would you give any indolent youths known to you?
Edit to add: PV does not seem to be accounting for fixed annuals contributions of 6500$. Suggestions and solutions are welcomed

@Crash, I don't think it is any more volatile than other funds in its category. Probably the same volatility, standard deviation, as your HY fund you hold now. I just meant it is more so than what I already hold, CSOAX, RSIIX, CBLDX, RPHYX. IGIB seems to trend along with Catch22's bond fund, BAGIX (a good bond fund imo), but I think has returned a bit more than BAGIX over time.

Thanks @Junkster. I really appreciate your input. Out of all the options you mentioned, DHEAX strikes my fancy. I have to say, you sure do find the smooth trending funds, but I know that is your forte. I invested in CSOAX a few months ago. I know it is labeled HY by M*, but it has strategic in its name, so I'm guessing, hoping, it adjusts to changing conditions. I also started buying IGIB to get some intermediate corporate bond exposure, but that trend, though positive lately, is pretty bumpy. I've held the more conservative RPHYX, RSIVX and FLRN in my conservative withdrawal bucket for a while now.
I haven't closed a post with this in a while, but it is getting to that time... GO BILLS.

Looking to replace MMKT funds and still try for 5% per year after rates are reduced, with low volatility. RSIVX (RSIIX)and RPHYX (RPHIX) are getting initiated, and will sit next to HMEZX and CBLDX. Boring is desirable in this bucket.
The Fed should just leave the darn rates alone.

I like FLRN a lot. A nice steady trend. If you extrapolate out the 1 and 3 month results, it is returning in the range of 6.8% and 7.2% respectively, very close to it's 1 year return of 6.9%. I also hold RPHYX in this space.
Going out a bit farther on duration, I really like the RiverPark/Crossbridge products, RSIIX and CBLDX.
On tax efficiency, I admit I don't pay attention since these are all held in an IRA. So maybe they don't fit as well for you.

Yeah, this is in taxable, so a fair amount of FLRN will get double-taxed for me. :( I'm leaning towards USFR at the moment for the tax benefits.

I like FLRN a lot. A nice steady trend. If you extrapolate out the 1 and 3 month results, it is returning in the range of 6.8% and 7.2% respectively, very close to it's 1 year return of 6.9%. I also hold RPHYX in this space.
Going out a bit farther on duration, I really like the RiverPark/Crossbridge products, RSIIX and CBLDX.
On tax efficiency, I admit I don't pay attention since these are all held in an IRA. So maybe they don't fit as well for you.

MINT has always been talked about as a cash-like substitute on this board, since I've been coming here. I've never owned it but do own similar, steady-eddy funds, FLRN and RPHYX in my withdrawal bucket.

@David_Snowball
Hi David.
Thank you for sharing as always.
Your list of top managers largely and understandably looks like the cream of the crop from the funds in your portfolio as per most recent post. (I am less of a bond fund investor: Mr. Sherman is ‘David K. Sherman’ managing RPHYX, right?). And since I actually prefer low-profile managers, are the Leuthold and T Rowe Price people: Scott Opsal (+ m.b. Chun Wang) and Charles Shriver (+ m.b. Stefan Hubrich / Richard De Los Reyes)? Are there others at those co's I have missed?
Overall, your manager selections make perfect sense to me in all instances, but one. And I either trust these same managers with my investments (Seafarer, Grandeur, Artesian and now, Palm Valley) or would certainly consider doing so under the right circumstances, again – except for one. Oddly enough, this ‘one’ is your top fund holding: FPA Crescent (FPACX).
I used to have a position in FPACX long ago, but sold out for alternatives, because – to my eyes – this is a good example of where a fund and a manager ranking might diverge: i.e., a good fund with an average manager. Clearly, I am missing something, since you both value Mr. Romick highly and also have a better understanding of mutual fund dynamics.
You have previously mentioned that FPACX has ~ matched S&P 500 with about half the downside. That is a significant achievement and a strong relative metric when comparing funds – though not necessarily managers – as S&P 500 is unmanaged (sans relatively rare changes to the index). Also, S&P 500 is Large Cap while FPACX is MA/AL per MStar, so it does not seem to make for an entirely apples-to-apples comparison.
So, the questions I asked myself were:
1. How much value did Mr. Romick create for shareholders within the strategy where he operates: MA/AL (unless you believe FPACX is misclassified)? And
2. Are there managers within that strategy who have created significantly better long-term value so they might be called ‘great’ and, by extension, other manager – whose performance was meaningfully lesser – would be ‘average’ or below? (This also avoids the active manager vs passive index issues.)
Re 1, I looked at FPACX 10-year record on MStar – not as long as 30 years but might be sufficient to test across market conditions. There, FPACX has 10 y Alpha of 1.14, Beta of 1.14 coincidentally, max DD of -20.51%, and Sharpe ratio of 0.52 vs MStar MA/AL index w max DD -22.30% and Sharpe ratio of 0.61. This, and I could be very wrong, would seem to imply that active management of FPACX resulted in the fund fairly closely tracking the index and was able to generate a modest 1.14% excess return vs index at the cost of lower Sharpe ratio. To me, these numbers imply that active management of FPACX delivered average value for a good fund (i.e., a fund that managed to do marginally better than a well-performing index, which returns a poor manager / placeholder might implicitly or explicitly emulate).
Re 2, There are several options here, but I will use the one that has already been brought up: PRWCX. I think the comparison is fair since FPACX has spent most of the last 10 years in the same MA category as PRWCX. And it is a well-known fund not on your portfolio list, so you have – so to speak – chosen Mr. Romick’s fund management over Mr. Giroux’s. I do not believe, perhaps wrongly, that it is due to fund size as FPACX is not "small" and PRWCX has grown this "big" only in the last few years. As for active management metrics: per MStar PRWCX has 10 y Alpha of 4.55, Beta of 1.01, Sharpe ratio of 0.88, and max DD of -16.53%. That is, using a roughly similar pool of strategies and within the same timeframe, Giroux produces ~ 4x higher excess return, with better risk-return profile, lower downside if you happen to need the assets at just the wrong moment, and – depending on how you interpret data – does so in an arguably more predictable way. That sounds ‘great’ to me. So, why Mr. Romick and not Mr. Giroux?
To be honest, I was so baffled that I’d signed up for MFO Premium – one good thing to come out of this – and looked for clues there. The only thing I could find when running a comparison on MFO Premium was maxDD of -36.63% for PRWCX vs -28.83% for FPACX in 200902. Btw, things looked even grimmer @ MStar w max DD of at least -40.11% vs -30.80%, respectively, in the same timeframe. (Does MFO calculate max DD differently?) However, the time to convergence within 5% was quite short ~ 1 mo. So, does 5% extra DD over one month deprecate all other evidence that Mr. Giroux is a significantly better manager? Seemed doubtful to me. Finally, this comparison might not even be relevant as, in the words of Mr. Giroux, this was a BFS era, before Farris Shuggi […] it changed the way I managed CAF which happened in late 2009. In that sense, Mr. Giroux capabilities have undergone a (positive) qualitative change and, when comparing Mr. Giroux to Mr. Romick management skills since 2010, the superiority of the former appears to leave no doubt. So, I am still puzzled...
Of course, none of this is meant as a critique in any way – except, perhaps, of my own decision to sell out of FPACX – but I remember using similar logic to drive my own choice then and am, more than anything, trying to see what I might have missed. (Especially, since the rest of your fund manager appraisals resonate so well with my own.)