RPHYX, if it was open, is available at Merrill Edge which is part of Merrill Lynch.

Hi Crash. The list of funds the advisor gave you is likely the funds that are on their "platform". For them, they get a kick back for getting you into the fund. Pretty standard in the industry.
If you think you need an advisor, look for a fee-only person. I think the big-box advisors first priority is often picking funds where they get the best kick-back. Funds from insurance companies are often on these lists. This website will give you fee only advisors in your are. NAPFA is a very reputable organization.
http://www.napfa.org/
This link explains the differences in advisor fees
http://moneyover55.about.com/od/findingqualifiedadvisors/g/Feeonlyadvisor.htm
All advisors, fee only or fee based, are in the business to make money. That is understandable and not a bad thing. But if the advisor is pigeon holed into only specific fund choices, that's not the greatest situation for you. Many of the funds you read about on this board will not be available at the big-box store. A fund often talked about here on MFO for example, RPHYX, would never be available to you with Merrill Lynch.

Looking at the list of "holdings" leaves me rather uncomfortable, because what appears is not holdings at all, but simply names of issuers. There's often no way to identify the particular securities.
This becomes apparent when one compares the website's stated "holdings" of RPHYX with those stated clearly and explicitly in the SEC filing. (The date of each's list is different, so the holdings don't always match; that's not the point.)
Website (Oct 31): http://www.riverparkfunds.com/Funds/ShortTermHighYield/FullHoldings.aspx
Quarterly SEC filing (June 30) http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000113542813000441/riverpark-nq.txt
For example, the website lists PANORO ENERGY ASA twice (separated by a few lines), which I suppose means that there are two different securities. But what's the difference - yield, maturity, coupon, ...? There's no information at all. In contrast, the SEC filing shows that there are two different notes held, 13.5% and 12.0% coupons, with the same 11/15/2018 maturity. And one of these is a 144A placement, the other is not (per footnotes). But the website, which sometimes notes that securities are 144A placements, makes no mention of it on the Oct holdings. Is this an error, simply lack of detail, or did the Panoro holdings change between June and Oct? No way of knowing.
Since we don't have any SEC filings on RSIVX's portfolio, we really don't have much of a clue what's in its portfolio (i.e. the website only gives issuers, not securities). But here's a brief stab:
David asked about HOA Restaurant 144A. Given that this is (or at least appears to be) a Hooters (HOA Restaurant Group) private placement (144A to qualified institutional buyers), one has to wonder what's on David's mind. :-) Can't tell any details about this particular security, however.
It took me awhile to translate the largest holding - MAV 2009-2 A1 ABS 7/15/56. First guess was preferred securities (leveraging) of the closed end fund Pioneer Municipal Advantage Trust (MAV), but the rest of the data didn't match. Finally got to Master Asset Vehicle II, Class A-1, issued January 21, 2009, and maturing June 15, 2056. Canadian paper, seems to be part of Canada's handling of the 2008 meltdown. Haven't delved too deeply into it, but here are some background docs that might help:
Trust Document (long and painful)
Debt Restructuring Description (what MAVs are, what the classes are, etc. - shorter and clearer)
One paragraph description (incredibly dense, terse, and technical)
2011 Press Release (amounts outstanding in each MAV series and each class therein, along with ratings)
Note that this is just a guess on my part. For example, the docs that I found all refer to Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP), not ABS (asset backed securities) that RiverPark used in identifying the issuer.
Personally, I want to know what securities are in a portfolio. Without that, I don't have enough information to figure out what's driving the yield. At least the next annual report (Sept 30th holdings) should be out shortly.

Reply to @Vert:
My distinct impression is that RPHYX' advantage is pure alpha created by David Cohanzick's research and strategy. Managing it is a ton of work. I am trusting you see the same thing here. Disclosure: long the strategy.

Reply to @linter: Chip and I, separately, bought shares as soon as they became available through Scottrade. That said, I'm not particularly banging the drum for the fund because it is distinct enough that it's going to take some time to understand fully. David Sherman has impressed me, I'm fairly conservative and pretty dubious about the underpinnings of both major markets, which is what convinced me to entrust a bit more money to the guy.
For what interest it holds, he speculated that RSIVX might yield about twice what RPHYX (which is closed to most new investors) did. Since inception, a $1000 at RSIVX has grown by $12.31. The same amount invested on the same date in RPHYX would have grown by $6.68. Here's the chart, RSIVX in blue:

The fund that Sherman imagined as most comparable to RSIVX was Osterweis Strategic Income (OSTIX), a four-star, $5 billion fund that Morningstar assigns to the multisector bond category. RSIVX is categorized as "conservative allocation," which normally signals a small but noticeable equity stake. It's not clear that that will be the case here.
Again, the chart:

After just six weeks, it would be lunatic to consider performance as anything more significant than a conversation starter.
David

Hello bnath. Good to hear from you. I recall connecting with you a few times at the old FA. No luck digging any of that up. My (possibly incorrect) recollection is that you raised some very good questions than about the value of balanced funds as opposed to other types of funds and received a number of great responses from many board members. I do note that you were active at MFO in June 2011 at which time you considered buying a deferred annuity. Your recent post raises some interesting questions beyond your "how to invest now" query. These are mostly rhetorical (to stimulate thought) but if time you are welcome to address any or all.
(1) There have been a number of creative ways some have deployed cash during this dismal interest rate environment. So, I'd be most interested in knowing how your 100% cash position was invested. Was it all, for example, in insured bank deposits and money market funds? If that's the case, than you've lagged inflation considerably over the past 5 years (not good). On the other hand, David and others have used RPHYX quite effectively as a cash substitute. I myself have some, but not all, invested in short and intermediate term bond funds. And, lastly, Catch22 for many years wrote an excellent column (The Fund Boat) at both Fund Alarm and than later here in which he aptly documented the phenominal bull market many types of fixed income investments enjoyed over the lengthy time you apparently sat in cash. I'm curious as to whether or not you followed the lead of Catch and other like-minded cautious investors by deploying at least some of your money into a diversified mix of bonds, bond funds, or other similar assets? If not, I'd certainly like to hear why not and what your reasoning was at the time? These products have likely lagged equities over the more recent past, but the conservative use of bonds and related products over the 2008 - 2013 time period (which Catch and many others employed and wrote about) was certainly preferable to leaving everything sitting in cash at near 0%.
(2) Your related question about how much you will need for retirement is crucial, but also a bit telling. I suspect you may not yet have developed the habit of constructing, following, and monitoring a yearly household budget. That's a separate area which I won't go into, except to say that from experience when my wife and I finally figured out how to do that, it made all our financial decisions much easier. It's a simple thing, and yet it made a profound difference in our lives. When it came time to contemplate retirement we already had several years of budget experience behind us. This was invaluable in doing the calculations to adjust for the different financial experiences retirement brings. In addition, we had confidence from past experience that we'd be able to continue to follow a budget (with some refinements) after we retired. Everything else came easier too. After an initial two or three "lean" years, we found we had more money for important things like leisure, travel, and charitable and gift giving - yet, curiously, were at the same time able to save more. Perhaps I've mis-read your post, but I think not, and so I encourage you to research and give some thought to the budget issue. An added thought: many sources, including T. Rowe Price, make retirement calculators available on the web. Once you have a handle on the "needs & budget" considerations, those resources will be of value in determining required initial assets, draw-down rates, life expectancy, and related mathematical calculations.
(3) Unfortunately, your post raises an age-old paradox. We as humans tend to run away from equities when they are cheap, yet desire to buy when they're much more costly. Would we pass-up a new coat at $50 and than buy the same one a few years later for $100 or $150? Probably not. Yet, on March 9, 2009 here's where the three major U.S. stock indexes stood. The Dow Jones closed at 6,547. The S&P 500 stood at 677. And the NASDAQ was at 1269. Please compare these numbers to today's. You'll likely see what I'm getting at. I don't know whether the market is cheap today or not. There's a number of interesting threads now trying to answer that. However, I do know that I'd much rather buy the same new coat for $50 than for $125 or $150. FWIW - Thanks for the provocative question. Regards

Reply to @kallerid: Sherman has about 40% of the RSIVX portfolio in the same securities as in the very conservative RPHYX, and was planning on letting cash accumulate a bit. In general, he imagines the fund living somewhere between the durations of the short-term and intermediate-term groups.
Here's a suggestion: write RiverPark and ask. You'd be surprised at how willing smaller firms are to communicate.
As ever,
David

use the AMZN link for MFO guys to get a few shekels so this great site can be free and not a burden.
BTW, Can you ask the RPHYX folks how the new fund could be UP 0.01 on a 14 basis point increase in 10yr? Is it less rate sensitive than usual fund?

Unlimited Dreams for Retirement vs Sleep Well at Night
"A recent television advertisement for
Prudential that is intended to encourage
you to save for retirement is on point with
my life. “If you could do anything you
wanted and be paid for it, what would that
be?” the narrator asks viewers. “That is
what retirement is supposed to be about,”
he goes on." Ron Baron Sept.30,2013 Baron Funds Shareholder Report http://www.baronfunds.com/BaronFunds/media/Quarterly-Reports/Baron-Funds-Quarterly-093013.pdf
From Mutual Fund Observer's David Snowball's October 1,2013 Commentary http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/10/october-1-2013/
RSIVX represents the next step out on the risk-return continuum. David Sherman believes that this strategy might be reasonably expected to double the returns of RPHYX. While volatility will be higher,Mr. Sherman is absolutely adamant about risk-management. He intends this to be a “sleep well at night” fund in which his mother will be invested. He refuses to be driven by the temptation to shoot for “the best” total returns; he would far rather sacrifice returns to protect against loss of principal. Morty Schaja affirms the commitment to “a very conservative credit posture.”
One notch up in the risk/reward equation from the aforementioned Merger Arbitrage Fund(s) would be Berwyn Income BERIX. Often mentioned on this board as a good choice for risk adverse investors. A Morning* 15 year standard deviation of 6.02 and 15 year annual return of 8.23% would seem a good choice for you.

Reply to @MJG: I agree! =)
Funny that RPHYX only gets a single star at M*, because by any risk adjusted measure, it screams. Granted, the biggest distinction is Martin, which measures drawdown...something this fund never seems to have. Even misplaced in the HY category, it still scores a 5 in the MFO rating system. It is in fact one of the new Great Owls. Here are all the GOs in this category:

So why, then, deploy your analysts to write endless prose about domestic large cap funds? Because that’s where the money is.

Right. That is where reprint royalties will be greatest for M*.

You should pay particular attention to a number called the “Maximum Drawdown.”

Hear, hear!

Like the old Hertz commercial, the real rather than apparent answer is “not exactly.”

Love it!

The situation becomes even more blurred where compliance policy allows investment in ETF’s or open-ended mutual funds, which in today’s world will often allow a fund manager to construct his own personal market neutral or hedged portfolio, to offset his investment in the fund he is managing.

Unbelievable!
Really beautiful piece by Mr. Studzinski. Thank you!
Pretty sad to see Aegis Value AVALX adding load. It's 10 year performance is poor. And, 5 year performance mediocre. "It is the doom of man that they forget."
Who uses words like "triumvirate"? =)
Nice heads-up on Mr. Woodford.
American Beacon Flexible Bond Fund ranks near the bottom of nontraditional bond category in MFO ratings. Class A shares carry a 4.75% load and 1.39 er. Here is M* performance comparison:

John Park laid out its mission succinctly: “we pursue the maximum returns in the safest way possible.”

Nice. I just registered for the Oakseed call.
And, registered for the RiverPark call.
"The Gundlash" Ha!

Here’s a decent rule: if they can’t write a grocery list without babbling, you should avoid them. Contrarily, clear, graceful writing often reflects clear thinking.

Many managers update their commentaries and fund materials quarterly...

If they do not, avoid them.
This new Update summary is very helpful! Thanks to Mr. Welsch.
Tilsen Dividend TILDX, now Centaur Total Return, has a great 5 year record, mediocre 3 year, and poor 1 year record.
Very glad Professor Snowball is beginning to see the light with regard to BBALX.
Glad to see that Mr. Waggoner is an MFO fan.
Mitchell Capital All-Cap Growth Fund is one sad story...ditto for Nomura Partners...and so many others, seems like.
Great commentary David, Chip and team.
Many thanks for doing what you do.

Hi folks. The MFO rating system uses the Category assigned by Morningstar, for better or worse. There are over 90 such categories.
Reading through the Morningstar Glossary it states: "We place funds in a given category based on their portfolio statistics and compositions over the past three years."
They make some terrible mis-categorizations, like David discussed this month with RPHYX, but probably not as many as we would make if we tried to categorize the 7500 or so unique funds.
Note that "Morningstar Category" is different from "Investment Style," which looks at where the current portfolio is focused in the 3x3 style box. Here again is Glossary, which for equity funds states: "Morningstar determines the investment style of each individual stock in its database." Also, here: Investment Style.
One other thought, I understand that fund houses can appeal to Morningstar's editorial board if they believe their fund(s) is mis-categorized.
Hope this helps.

Reply to @linter: I've purchased what I call a "mental hedge" - I bought some "SH" (Proshares short S&P 500). Its a trade, not an investment.
It allows me to continue to buy more long positions, but with the knowledge that I can clip some gains if we get a heavy pullback (i.e. sell SH after we've had a correction).
I've been leaning on MFLDX, GRSPX, VWELX. BPRRX (at Fido) and WAFMX. But my largest position is RPHYX (closed to new investments).
My portfolio is extremely boring, but I like to limit downside at the expense of large gains.

Until the late 90s, M* classified funds according to their stated "investment objectives" - aggressive growth, growth (no focus on dividends), growth and income (secondary emphasis on income), equity income (primary focus on income, growth secondary), small company, etc. (Hard to find a complete list of M*'s old methodology).
They changed their methodology, as I recall, in recognition that funds were narrowing the pools in which they "fished", leading to classification by style box.
These seem to be two ends of a spectrum. Funds that are more "old school", as I tend to think of FLPSX, are wide ranging, and are better characterized by what they look for in a security as opposed to the size of the company or a static snapshot of the company's financials (P/E, P/B, etc. - growth vs. value). Funds that are "style pure" are handled better by M*'s current methodology.
M* made another change at the time - they started looking at what funds really invested in, as opposed to what they said they were investing in. For the most part, this was an improvement. Funds might say that the world was their oyster, but might only buy blue chips. It would make more sense to compare such a fund with the S&P 500 than with FLPSX or some (other) global multi-cap fund. But if a fund has that sort of flexibility, and uses it, even it it takes years to rotate out of one part of the market into another, it might be better to compare it with global funds, even if it were currently all domestic.
Classifying anything is an extremely difficult task. I recall reading several years ago that it took medical experts ten years to come up with a good classification system for bones in the arm. There always seem to be competing objectives, and no classification system seems to work completely.
Aside from RPHYX, issues I have with bond fund classifications include:
BCHYX - Am Century Calif. HY - this demonstrates the opposite problem - it is a junk bond fund thrown in with California long term (investment grade), while it might be better matched to national HY. (RPHYX is thrown in with junk bonds, while it might better match short term investment grade, since its duration attribute seems to dominate).
Total return funds - these are the bond world's equivalent of "multi-cap", but they get thrown in with intermediate term bonds.
Core plus funds - a subset of total return funds; these funds include junk as well as investment grade bonds.
BCHYX, like RPHYX, doesn't really have enough peers to be put into a separate category. But total return and core plus funds likely do.

You're right. 5000 active funds might well require 5000 boxes to ensure a great fit. I wonder if a compromise is to add another (I know, I know) bit of information: quality of fit. Morningstar calculates (but does not always publish) R-squared values that measure the degree of fit between a fund and a category.
I wonder if there are valid statistical grounds for saying that, for funds with an R-squared above 90, the category is a good fit. For funds from 80-89, the category is a fair fit. For funds below 80, the category is a poor fit? The numbers here are just illustrative, since I barely escaped Stats alive.
So: for Fidelity Low-Priced Stock, they might report: "FLPSX is judged as a mid-cap blend fund. There is only a fair match between the fund and this category" or "RPHYX is judged as a high yield bond fund. There is a poor fit between the fund and this category."
The FLPSX peer groups are, by the way, Mid-Cap Blend for performance, Mid-Cap No Load for fees and expenses, and Lifetime Moderate 2040 for MPT stats. Nuts.
Ah pity da wall that crosses Catch.
David

Greetings David,
I don't want to make a big deal over this . . . it is really "small beer." I have the same beef with Morningstar. I am not suggesting that you change your narratives at all, or the context, but the first time you mention a ticker, like RPHYX, you could easily add, parenthetically, a single word -- RPHYX (closed) -- which requires eight key strokes and little space. Value IS added, particularly for new readers, or regular readers (like me) who sometimes miss an edition.
But this is your website. I'm going to dig and find out anyway, here or elsewhere, when authors fail to mention that a fund is closed. (Full disclosure: each time I get mad when I realize a fund is closed.)
Others have said you can sometimes get in the "backdoor" with closed funds. True. I have done this myself. It's a bit of a hassle, but, it can be done. I've done this by calling Vanguard and regarding a closed T. Rowe Price fund.
David, you have an excellent website here, and offer a great deal of value and insight, with or without indicating if a fund is closed in every article you write. So carry on!
Best regards,
RJalpha aka "RJ"

Reply to @linter:
DFA funds - open or closed? They are generally only open if you invest through limited set of advisers who are already working with the fund. Sounds about the same as the condition for getting into RPHYX.
It's not black or white - that's the problem - a single bit (yes/no, true/false, open/closed) doesn't give enough of the story to tell you that you don't need to look further.
Artisan funds - many are closed, but open if you have $100K invested in their family of funds. That's a back door that could be used by someone rolling over a sizeable long term 401K plan. Buying into some of their open funds (it's a good family), and once qualifying, buy into some of their closed funds. If you didn't have Artisan funds to begin with (e.g. not offered in your 401K) would you know this back door was available to you?
There are certainly back doors that I would expect affected people to know about - like Vanguard Flagship customers being able to get into closed Vanguard funds. But that's because Vanguard heavily promotes this as a benefit of Flagship status. Other back doors, like Artisan, aren't so widely known.
Old Westbury funds - open, $1K min. But ... "Investments in the Old Westbury family of funds must be authorized by Bessemer Investment Management LLC [BIM]". (As near as I can see, one must be a client of BIM - not even a choice of adviser firms - and their min seems to be $10M.)
I've no problem with open/closed being added to the site - I just don't think it's sufficiently precise to be actionable.

Technically, there is (as I read it) a back door into RPHYX. It's just not one that people here would be likely to use.
If you work with an adviser or financial planner who had clients with money in the fund as of June 21, 2013 (the closing date), you're allowed to invest via that adviser. See the prospectus.
There are often back doors to closed funds, ways to avoid loads, that work for some people. This is why I don't join the chorus in saying that sites like this, or M*, should not cover load funds or closed funds. They are still interesting, they may be available (albeit to just a few), they may give insight into strategies or particular managers (who sometimes manage similar funds for other families).
It's also why I take a notice that a fund is closed not as a rejection, but as a challenge. :-)
It's also why I'm not sure there's too much value in adding such a notice on the site - depending upon your situation, YMMV.

Uhhh ... actually the story focused on the limitations of Morningstar's star rating system. RPHYX, which we've been talking about for two years and whose closure we signaled about a month before the event, received its first star rating in October which is why it became the poster child in the story.
You might keep an eye on its newly launched sibling, RiverPark Strategic Income, which we profiled briefly in October as part of a Launch Alert. We'll do a conference call with manager David Sherman and RiverPark president Morty Schaja on December 9 and we'll have a profile of the fund on January 1.
As ever,
David

MFO did a nice job of featuring RPHYX on November 1st, and it is surely a fine fund. Just one problem: it's closed to new investors. Suggestion to MFO: let the readers know this up-front, not only for this fund, but for any featured fund that is, aaah, closed.

Reply to @Junkster: In 2008, UltraShort Bond funds were being used for cash. The category only lost 0.53% in Q3 2011, but lost 7.89% in 2008. I agree with you Junkster, that RPHYX has never been tested in a bad bear market.