exp --- gah, I quail when asked for advice, since I mooch here so much and lack confidence financially despite having done okay over the decades (with huge exceptions).
Anyway, I say yes, absolutely, as I have done, because DSENX since last fall has outperformed the PLUS stuff significantly (meaning enough, meaning nontrivial) and indeed outperformed everything else conservative I own. I may, if I have nerve, go 50-50 with them and RGHVX, as I wrote earlier, with large moneys. But I do not have nerve just yet. I have put a lot into DSENX already, yes, so this is not just theoretical.

Thanks much. A good comparison, which I will keep in mind. I just charted those two plus FLPSX, a core holding of mine, from Sept 08 to Dec 11, and actually the 08-09 dip hedging and recovery are superior, although not as much as one might hope, yes. Indeed both RGHVX and FLPSX match or beat VMVAX, but when you continue the graph out to yesterday, RGHVX trails both a little, which match. Thanks, helpful.
Thoughts on DSENX?

Compare RGHVX to VMVAX (Vanguard midcap value) which IMHO should be its benchmark, given its investment style. Certainly RGHVX's 34% drop in 2008 doesn't make its hedging look particularly impressive. Anyway, point is that it underperformed VMVAX since the latter's inception without any less volatility. I know people on this board love the fund, but I don't see it. I think it was Bee who first suggested the comparison to VMVAX, btw.
That said, a midcap value index fund like VMVAX is probably a pretty damned good core holding.

Thanks to MFO / Snowball / partner researchers, I've been tracking these two 'new' mutual funds since last Nov, and they are matching or outperforming everything else, pretty smoothly (including early Feb dip) except for some niche equity funds.
What gives? I am seriously thinking of transferring the majority, nonsmall, of retirement moneys to DSENX and RGHVX, 50-50. What could go wrong? (I know, if you have to ask....) I mean compared with what other funds?

Do some research,which takes a little longer now that the 2008-early 2009 debacle falls between published 5 and 10 year past performances,but there is info out there and also on this site. Harvest some gains into a L/S fund you can feel comfy with or a hedged equity fund similar to RGHVX or MARVX. I've been scolded on this site concerning BRUFX and it's performance in the down draft,but the fund continues to set new highs and check out the M* 15 yr ratings and risk.http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=BRUFX&region=usa&culture=en-US .It's my largest holding.Takes a little work to invest because the fund is not available in the fund super markets,but the long term record makes a compelling case.
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/screener?FundType=0&FundValue=0&ReturnFundPeriod=11
Everyone has a favorite fund story for down markets.Maybe this thread will bring some of those "big fish" stories to light.Thanks to rsorden 's post on OTCRX ,never was aware of the fund until I read about it on this site. I opened a position in the fund and also in HHCAX. Will the funds protect me in a 20%-40% bear market? Which funds have?Which funds haven't had "lagging years"?
Thoughts on Otter Creek Long/Short (OTCRX)
It's a new fund, but the predecessor LP was successful despite a few lagging years. Looking for something to compliment a heavy equity portfolio, in addition to William Blair Macro Allocation (WMCNX).
rsorden April 5 in Fund Discussions http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/41143/#Comment_41143
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/longshort-equity/$FOCA$LO.aspx

I need a macro key for 'everything cman said'.
Press, you have way too many funds and are doing expensive indexing, or coming close.
MM, correct: RGHVX is not pure. Note that it's ~16% SC, compared with, oh, I dunno, 0% for Yackts, 4% for PRBLX, and 21% for FLPSX. So in the game of 'which is most like the other' or whatever it is, it has quite a nontrivial amount of SC in addition to all its MC (of course its M* class is MCV).
All I was sayin' at the start.

@davidrmoran and @MikeM seem to be talking past each other.
@MikeM is right because RGHVX is a Long/Short fund, @davidrmoran is right because it is a dominant mid cap in its long positions with rest in large caps with shorting primarily for downside hedge. It does not have much, if any, of small caps, so it may not satisfy the requirement of the original poster in coverage unless paired with a small cap.
Portfolio allocation by labels can be misleading though.
I would consider RGHVX as a candidate for midcap value (David's report is wrong in comparing it to large cap value) WITH downside protection like any "pure" fund that may go to cash for downside protection. The differentiation between funds that protect downside by going to cash vs hedging as in the case of this fund seems like a difference without a distinction to me in behavior or even in risk.
It is like classifying as Bordeaux vs classifying as Cabernet or Merlot. It is the result characteristic that matters.
The strategies are just means to an end which is to participate in mid-long market with downside protection for this fund. Pure seems like an arbitrary label. Is a fund that has allocation to large caps pure? Not any more or less than using index options to hedge in my view. Most funds are not pure.
The problem is that L/S category includes many different categories with different goals. If the goal of RGHVX in its short position was to remain market neutral to get absolute returns then I would agree with @MikeM and not put it in a mid cap category because its return profile would be very different from a mid cap.

davidrmoran: RGHVX would not be considered a small-mid cap fund. As per David's write up on this fund:

Objective and strategy
RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value seeks long-term capital appreciation while exposing investors to less risk than broad stock market indices. The strategy is to hold a diversified portfolio mid- to large-cap value stocks, mostly domestic, and to hedge part of the stock market risk by selling a blend of index call options. In theory, the mix will allow investors to enjoy most of the market’s upside while being buffered for a fair chunk of its downside.

I like it and I own it, but it uses hedging strategies.

What cm said. I am keen on downside prudence, and thus would suggest you look hard at three not your list: FLPSX. RGHVX, and GABSX.

RGHVX at Fido is ntf.

Just noted: "RIVERPARK LOWERS MINIMUM INVESTMENT ON INSTITUTIONAL SHARES OF ITS MUTUAL FUND FAMILY TO $100,000 FROM $1 MILLION"
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/News/RiverPark_Lowers_Institutional_Share_Class_Investment_Minimums.pdf
For those who didn't want to pay the Schwab fee, it seems the RiverPark folks have made the Institutional shares somewhat easier to reach if you buy the shares directly from RiverPark.
RPXIX RiverPark Large Growth Fund Class Institutional
RPXFX RiverPark Large Growth Fund Class Retail
RLSIX RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Instl
RLSFX RiverPark Long/Short Opportunity Retail
RPHIX RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund Class Institutional
RPHYX RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund Class Retail
RSIIX RiverPark Strategic Income Fund Institutional Class
RSIVX RiverPark Strategic Income Fund Retail Class
RSAIX RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund Institutional Class
RSAFX RiverPark Structural Alpha Fund Retail Class
RGHVX RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund Retail Class
RGHIX RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Instl
RWGIX RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund Class Institutional
RWGFX RiverPark/Wedgewood Fund Class Retail

I am thankful for David doing these calls and getting access to these fund managers.
But I still see the same problem in the summary of this call. Why is RGHVX fund being compared to LCV when it is index hugging MCV in portfolio returns via its composition?
Isn't that a critical piece of evaluating a fund?

David also hosted an hour phone call/teleconference with the PMs at RGHVX, which I thought was very informative...like just about all these calls. Here is link to the summary and mp3:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/03/riverparkgargoyle-hedged-value-rghvx-3/
And, here is link to similar call with the good folks at ARLSX:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/02/astonriver-road-long-short-arlsx/

I am not seeing compelling reason to buy rghvx or that other schwab hedged equity fund if one is looking for l/s fund. That's like buying a geo metro if you are looking for a car

Here's link to David's latest update on RGHVX:

Informative description on the strategy. Goes to show that the M* L/S category is way too broad covering a wide variety of strategies and investment styles and so the average for that entire category is meaningless to compare against.
A couple of small problems with the writeup:
For the retail fund, it is misleading to compare its performance against the SP500. It would be more meaningful to compare it to a midcap value index given its portfolio. Comparing it to something like IWS will make the cost of hedging apparent in rising markets rather than make it look like it is a free lunch. The downside protection is evident but nothing to get excited about. The yellow line is IWS.

The style may have been different when it was a hedge fund but if they had the same style even then, they are not being "honest" by calling themselves large value and dipping into the higher returns in riskier midcaps to compensate for hedging costs. :-) That is how the "strategy works".
This is why I suggested that it is a fund to consider in the midcap value allocation, not LCV as the writeup suggests.
Also, you don't sell call options to nervous investors unless one is talking about investors nervous that the market will go up! You sell it to bullish investors that want to bet on the upside so you can hedge your downside as you keep the premium if the market falls or remains the same. The more you sell, less exposure to the market's upside as you have to pay the increase over the strike price + premium.
You sell put options to nervous investors as insurance who are trying to hedge their downside and so not what the fund would want to do since the fund also wants the same protection. The fund could buy put options for downside protection but then it would land up paying the premium.
The writeup is a bit confusing on what they are actually doing because of the above.

Here's link to David's latest update on RGHVX:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/03/riverparkgargoyle-hedged-value-rghvx-2/

RGHVX

Don't know anything about this fund other than the current snapshot I can see on M*.
From performance, it seems to work like a competent low volatility mid cap value fund - what XMLV should be but isn't. That seems to be consistent with their stated objective. They have delivered on that in their brief existence as a retail fund, so that is a good thing. How they might deal with a 2001 or a 2008/9 as a retail fund is unknown, of course.
I have no reason to believe that they will not deliver on that objective at the current low asset base where it is easier and cheaper to hedge. Will that strategy scale up if and when their asset base grows? I have no information to say one way or another.
Looking at the last snapshot portfolio, they are extremely good at stock picking or extremely good at end of quarter window dressing or both. :-)
I would consider a fund like this in the portfolio allocation for midcaps in a managed fund bucket to fit a volatility profile rather than to fill an alternative strategy bucket. For me, the latter funds need to be somewhat uncorrelated with the relevant index in some noticeable ways than just managing volatility or providing capital/downside protection.

d'oh!
RGHVX
sorry

Hi Charles. It might have been a down week, but your Whitebox and FAAFX funds both were up this week.
I've been having fun watching the results of WBMIX versus RGHVX which I hold. It's like a horse race with Gargoyle up by a length - year to date :)

Gah, I would expect to be asking you that rather than vice-versa.
?:
1) Look to the longer terms to see what if anything exists in reality.
I have just been comparing Tillinghast (FLPSX) over the last 12.9y *by year bundle* --- smidgens of plus, but real, yet waning since 08, fewer or no more pluses. Ditto, quite, for Gabelli GABSX vs VB, 10y and in.
2) So go ahead and go with indexes only? Or stick with those two (:)).
3) Be prepared for shorter-term superiority to wane and plan accordingly, whatever that means.
Sounds flip, I realize.
Meantime, what if RGHVX really has found secret sauce, as it amazingly appears? What then for its future?