I've been disappointed also. Parked a moderate amount in the fund while awaiting the correction that hasn't come and have lost a couple of hundred bucks (according to my TDA account) so far, while their TDA graph shows a steady slow increase as a return. I'd accept 2+% vs TDA's paltry fraction of a percent on cash in their money market, if that was what I was getting, but it looks like my RMD is coming out of RPHYX this year.
I presume that means the correction will then occur, and RPHYX will return something better than zero; so, for those of you awaiting investment signals, I'll take my RMD in December.

And let's not forget about the promised returns of 7% to 8% in the sister fund of RPHYX - RSIVX

I am a long time RPHYX shareholder, but have been reducing my position and am reconsidering its value. Originally its stated goals were (as David Snowball put it) 300-400 bps over money market. But as Junkster points out in this earlier thread:

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.

Morningstar currently has this fund at 2.41% over the past year, 2.19% over the past 3 years and 2.58% over the past 5 years. Of course this is in part due to 2015, where there some investment mistakes resulted in a disastrous year (relatively speaking). However, just looking at the more recent returns, it doesn't seem like "300-400 bps over money market" has been a feasible goal for some time now.
I took a look at some of the recent manager commentaries on the RiverPark website, but they didn't seem to give much insight as to target return and whether they expect recent trends to persist. What do other folks think -- Is a return of 2.5% a more realistic expectation for this fund? Is it still worth sticking to around this level?

@Catch22. Thanks! FWIW, my bear market ammo is split between cash and two conservative bond funds: RPHYX and SUBFX.

Anyone have any experience and/or thoughts on this fairly new (September 2016) RiverPark fund. It is not managed by Cohanzick Management (David Sherman) of the Riverpark High Yield (RPHYX/RPHIX) & Strategic Income (RSIVX/RSIIX) funds, and there's no real history but it looks interesting as a commercial real estate mortgage play with a yield based on the monthly LIBOR rate resets. Mr. Snowball posted a Launch Alert back in October but I see nothing else in the archives.
The main drawback I see to this fund (other than its being an MBS) is its structure as a closed-end "interval" fund and a limitation of only being able to redeem (sell) shares on a quarterly basis. In all probability, the 5-25% of outstanding shares quarterly repurchase limitation would never (probably never?) be invoked, but it is a consideration limiting ones personal liquidity.
Other comments?
/dave

The problem is one shouldn't really invest 100% in 1 fund like VWINX. It is just too risky to do that. If there was "guarantee" I would get 3%, keep my principle, year after year in retirement, accepting the occasional loss, is one thing. However, I need multiple funds like that invest in retirement to offset single fund list.
In my Scottrade IRA, I keep a few "income" funds. I don't trade them. Not that I'm retiring, but just use remaining money to get in/out of stocks while I keep part of it always invested in income funds. VWELX/VWINX would be swell to own in this portfolio, but I just don't have that option. I'm making do with RNDLX, SIRIX, ETNMX, MAINX, RPHYX, RSIVX, PLMDX (for now) and IRNIX (contemplating)

Nothing is zero risk. Wells Fargo funds shouldn't be bought on first principles.
Take a look at SIRIX and SSIIX. ER is very high, but these guys seem to be navigating portfolio well and do actively focus on capital preservation. I've had SIRIX in my IRA for a while along with RPHYX and RSIVX.

When I was looking for a cash substitute for my bucket 1 holdings, RPHYX was closed. From the Great Owl listings, SSTHX has filled in admirably for me, is NTF at Schwab, and has served its purpose well.

"The fund has shown occasional (small) losses for a quarter, which should be impossible if all its bonds are due in no more than 30 days and all pay up."
Say you own an FDIC-insured CD maturing in 30 days, but (to quote JG Wentworth) "you need it NOW".

Your CD might allow an early withdrawal, but you'd pay a penalty. Or it might be a brokered CD and you could sell it, but again you'd take a haircut.
Being able to get your money in a month doesn't mean that shareholders can get their money now without causing a hit to the NAV. Not unless you add the assumption that the bonds mature on a daily basis in amounts adequate to meet daily redemptions, or that the fund keeps a 30 day cash buffer.
You're correct that RPHYX pursues multiple strategies but I don't think you can prove this with logic alone, i.e. that the NAV could not possibly fall if it only used the single "exceedingly short-term" maturity strategy.
BTW, "exceedingly short-term" was the phrase David used, along with "think 30-90 day maturity". Not 30 days.

"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?

I wasn't saying anything other than what was stated - the numbers provided by *M. People can make their own conclusions based on the numbers. Taxes may play a part in returns so I think it's important to keep that in mind, especially for those holding these types of funds in taxable accounts.

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.

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

@rsorden GILPX looks like a fine fund, but what are you reasons for preferring it over RPHYX? I'd like to see a longer track record, personally.

I much prefer GILPX over RPHYX for my cash substitute...

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.