OJ, I can understand RSIVX into ARTFX. RPHYX I feel still has a lower risk profile than the other two. But WTF do I know, I own all 3 right now.

Hey, thanks to all of you for your insights, sharing of knowledge, and your time on this.
I'm thinking on reallocating some of our RPHYX into ARTFX. (Yes, I realize that they are totally different animals.) Mucho Gracias!
Catch- Thanks for the in-depth info!
@Ted- very nice to see you back with us.

The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon published way back in 1895 yet as topical as ever. I really think RPHYX isn't all that bad albeit not my cup of tea. RSIVX I said before is a mediocre fund (actually less than mediocre now) and heavens forbid if Jim Rogers and Carl Icahn are correct in their assessment that something real ugly is brewing in corporate junk debt. As an aside, PONDX which has been mentioned favorably on MFO numerous times, just doesn't seem to get the love that undeserving RSIVX does. PONDX, swelled assets and all just keeps truckin on.
Nice post Junkster. And why all the ink on RSVIX and none on ASHIX that I can recall?
Mona

@TSP_Transfer: Thanks for the lead on PTIAX. It's an interesting looking company and group of seemingly smart managers. I have much regret about getting into RPHYX and RSIVX after acting on what I read on MFO.

The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon published way back in 1895 yet as topical as ever. I really think RPHYX isn't all that bad albeit not my cup of tea. RSIVX I said before is a mediocre fund (actually less than mediocre now) and heavens forbid if Jim Rogers and Carl Icahn are correct in their assessment that something real ugly is brewing in corporate junk debt. As an aside, PONDX which has been mentioned favorably on MFO numerous times, just doesn't seem to get the love that undeserving RSIVX does. PONDX, swelled assets and all just keeps truckin on.

@TSP_Transfer: Thanks for the lead on PTIAX. It's an interesting looking company and group of seemingly smart managers. I have much regret about getting into RPHYX and RSIVX after acting on what I read on MFO.

"So anyone plonking down their entire cash in RPHYX, leave alone RSIVX, need to know what they are doing. Or rather, they should not be doing that."
I don't think that it's a great idea to "plunk down your entire cash" in any one place these days. For safety and a slow but steady loss of purchasing power, there's the FDIC. For more protection of purchasing power but less safety, pick your poison.
This is why I'm watching RPHYX closely with respect to NAV deterioration: if that continues, then a move to FDIC is indicated.

Yeah, but let's agree what "substitute for cash" means. There is under the mattress(and good luck), Bank Account (and FDIC), Money Market Fund (and hope manager is not Bernie Madoff's third cousin), then RPHYX.
So anyone plonking down their entire cash in RPHYX, leave alone RSIVX, need to know what they are doing. Or rather, they should not be doing that. I mean HSGFX is market neutral and losing more money than most funds. By this analogy I should be complaining it should give me 0% return not negative. Now I AM complaining, but that's because it is giving me severe negative return for several years (well fewer years than other folks...)
If RPHYX/RSIVX drops 3% for 4 years, then let's all complain. Or let's give them time unless we hear anything more. Frankly, as I have said before, at this time I just need to know how much of his own money Sherman has in each fund. I never understand the fund disclosure rules. Besides, WTF don't managers tell us exactly what they own? It's not like it's a privacy issue, I don't think.

"I thought the purpose for MFOers investing in RPHYX was as a substitute for cash. It has performed well in that regard."
I agree. It's taken a hit recently, but if it stabilizes, it's still OK in my book. If it continues to maintain a slow but steady loss of NAV, that's another story altogether. Not losing any sleep, but I am watching.
Edit/Add: The above quote is from Junkster's original post, apparently now deleted. How on earth is it "agitation" to simply discuss all aspects of any particular question? Have we gotten so timid that we prefer an artificial silence to acquisition of knowledge? Good grief!!

Frankly, I want to know how many millions manager has in each fund and then decide. I own both RPHYX and RSIVX so it is not like I have to keep RSIVX. I went into RSIVX knowing it would have risks, but then also the possibility of higher returns.
IMHO the problem might be those who couldn't get into RPHYX thought RSIVX would give better returns with less risk, and then now their dissappointment is out of proportion.

Re RPHYX, I'm still up about 1% ytd and 4% overall since purchase. But I'm watching...
On the somewhat brighter side, I'd rather have an honest mark-to-market then some totally BS number, as has happened with other situations many times in the past.

Question for David Snowball -- In your November commentary, you informed that we may have a conference call this month with David Sherman, portfolio manager of RPHYX and RSIVX. Have you fixed the date and time for it? It would be very timely to hear Sherman's thoughts on the funds' recent performance as well as any expectations as we move forward.
Mohan

Okay, I see your point - that even though the star ratings for this fund aren't particularly meaningful (as David explained), this particular shift was properly reflective of poor (recent) performance in RPHYX. This was poor performance in an absolute sense, regardless of what its supposed peers were doing.
What I was trying to convey was that all this would be true (including a deserved reduction in stars) regardless of whether the fund screwed up (in the sense of bad decisions). What matters is that the fund sank for whatever reasons, even if the manager had made good decisions.
We agree - the fund did poorly and it's good that it lost stars as a result.

msf, normally I would agree, but in this thread, David's post was making the argument that when a fund is miscategorized, then the stars don't actually reflect the fund performance, because it is being compared against the wrong peers.
In the case of RPHYX, the argument would be that being downgraded to one star does not reflect the poor performance of RPHYX, but only that its miscategorized peers (high yield funds) are doing much better -- which is not relevant to evaluating RPHYX's performance.
I agree it doesn't make sense to compare RPHYX to other high yield funds, and indeed I'm sure there have been (and will be) many times where RPHYX's star rating gets downgraded or upgraded simply because it is miscategorized. But in this particular downgrade, it seems to me that it does reflect on RPHYX's actual recent struggles, and not just a result of being lumped in the high yield category.

Lot of discussion on RPHYX's recent performance in this thread: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24102/rphyx-rsivx-new-commentary-explains-mistakes-that-resulted-in-credit-losses#latest
I understand that RPHYX is miscategorized, but even so, I don't think the downgrade is meaningless or out of context. ZEOIX, which was profiled on MFO and has a similar-ish strategy and goal, is almost 200 bps higher than RPHYX this year. Which does not sound like a lot, but in the context of these funds, it means ZEOIX's return is almost 3 times more than RPHYX for the year. ZEOIX is sitting on three stars.
Maybe RPHYX doesn't deserve to be lumped in the high yield fund category, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be downgraded. The manager clearly made mistakes this year, and performance has suffered, both on an absolute basis and in comparison to other funds with similar goals.

In our rating system, RPHYX remains a top quintile fund based on risk adjusted return and a Great Owl ...

For many investors, that's good news.
RPHYX is categorized as a high-yield fund which is fundamentally misleading. It's designed to be a cash-management fund - 3-4% returns, negligible volatility - but it's benchmarked against high-volatility longer term bonds that act more like stocks. As a result, it tends to have exceedingly high Sharpe ratios and a one-star rating.
The only time you should see the fund with two (or, God forbid, three) stars is if the high-yield market is imploding. Having it drop back to one star is a sign of relative normalcy in the HY market.
For what that's worth,
David

RPHYX: RiverPark Short Term High Yield Retail
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 2 stars to 1 star.

In my inbox today
11/04/2015
MFLDX: MainStay Marketfield I
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 2 stars. For details, click here
RPHYX: RiverPark Short Term High Yield Retail
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 2 stars to 1 star. For details, click here
HHCAX: Highland Long/Short Healthcare A
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here
NEFZX: Loomis Sayles Strategic Income A
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 4 stars. For details, click here
MINDX: Matthews India Investor
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 4 stars. For details, click here
WSCVX: Walthausen Small Cap Value
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here
BRTNX: Bretton Fund
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 3 stars to 2 stars. For details, click here

In this year's difficult market though, it's 0.76% return for RPHYX, and -1.30% for SSTHX, about a 2% difference in favor of RPHYX. While I'm certainly less than thrilled at the deterioration in the RPHYX NAV, it would still seem to be a better place than SSHTX at least for now.

Old Joe...unless I'm misreading something, SSTHX has a +2.79% record for the YTD. While perhaps not something to write home about, it certainly is doing precisely what I would like a bond holding to do. As rates inch up, it will be interesting to see how this and ZEOIX behave, as I have both within the bond sleeve.
press

Many other posts have compared ZEOIX to RPHYX. Now, comparing SSTHX and RPHYX for the past three years, we have the typical $10000 at $10,733 for RHYPX, and $10,663 for SSTHX, pretty much a dead heat. In this year's difficult market though, it's 0.76% return for RPHYX, and -1.30% for SSTHX, about a 2% difference in favor of RPHYX. While I'm certainly less than thrilled at the deterioration in the RPHYX NAV, it would still seem to be a better place than SSHTX at least for now.
Looking at ZEOIX, it's doing quite well this year, at a 2.58% return, and with $10,966 for three years. Unfortunately, it's not available NTF at Schwab, as Press notes. Guess I'll have to stick with RPHYX for a while.