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.

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

How many of us bought RSIVX believing the managers would buy conservative investments and avoid risky situations, while minimizing the downside when interest rates rose? I've kicked this fund to the curb. Good riddance!

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.

Thanks to all the posters. After reviewing them and the 3rd quarter commentary, I decided to reduce my allocation to RPHYX. I now have $2 in ZEOIX for each $1 in RPHYX. However, as I had expected RSIVX to be higher risk and more volatile, I am inclined to leave that investment alone for another year to see how it performs going forward (assuming no more self inflicted wounds come to light during that period).

OJ, 'Tis a problem that gets worse every year. My husband goes RMD next year and then me in 2018 and my mattresses are full to overflowing without any cozy comfort at all. Even the utility room storage cabinets are already full. Where do I put it? Muni and blinders?

Don't know, now that the bloom appears to be off RPHYX. Maybe ZEOIX? See thread here.
Otherwise, I still look to internet banks (1%+ liquid rates), or short-intermediate munis (the blinders don't have to be quite so dark) like VMLTX.

Yes, I am slightly displeased by RPHYX and RSIVX's performance. However, they are still a hold for me.
And also a candidate for some tax loss harvesting. I'll be rolling my investments in Strategic Income into High Yield, waiting the requisite 30 days, and then rolling back.

I'm disappointed to say the least; some of these investments (like Verso) sound particularly troublesome and perhaps not researched as well as they should have been. It's going to take some time for RPHYX and RSIVX (both of which I hold) to recover from this, and I won't lie; I'm tempted to take the tax loss.

I have to agree RPHYX and RSIVX are "hold" for me. I'm not going to add any more money at least for a couple of years, assuming I will still hold until then.

I’ve a different take on the Riverpark commentary. I’ve had an unwanted degree of familiarity for some time, with Verso, Newpage and the now-merged entity, due to my ‘day-job’. (and please excuse me, a lot of this is based on recollection). Riverpark’s explanation of the problems at Verso are incongruous with my perception/experience with them.
(Old-) Verso and the merged Verso have been bleeding cash perpetually. Without the merger, Verso would probably likely have had a “corporate event” already. Newpage itself, had entered, then emerged from BK a few years ago. Its trip through BK, allowed Newpage to de-lever somewhat. So along comes Verso, somewhat like a parasitic organism to extract Newpage’s cash to prolong its own existence.
Riverpark’s commentary states that Verso has “exceeded expectations with respect to achieving synergies (of the merger)”. I can tell you with certainty that is a (Verso-) management talking point they put out when their horrific Q2-2015 results came out. – Trying to seduce investors to have faith in a management team, DESPITE the poor results. Riverpark is just parroting Verso’s earnings release/presentation materials, presumably taking it at face value. I viewed the “exceeding expectations” comment from Verso as an indictment --- if they were ahead of the curve in terms of slashing costs, and STILL their reported results were so poor, then they must REALLY be in trouble – and presumably the low-hanging fruit of the synergies has been done. (So not much more to be done to help them.)
As part of the merger (which, I believe closed in January) they did some type of bond exchange. Seem to recall the effect of it was to cram down a principal haircut on some bondholders. In return, the bondholders got a token lump-sum cash-out payment (further draining the merged entity of needed liquidity!!), and higher interest rates on the “new” bonds, some/much of it PIK, not cash. Possibly also a lightening of covenants. Why would you want to lend to a borrower who is doing a principal haircut of its debt? Isn’t that a major red-flag?
A key problem is ownership – Verso is controlled by private-equity firm Apollo. If memory serves, Apollo had large (likely controlling) stakes in both Newpage and Verso. Apollo has a particularly ugly history of asset-stripping companies which it controls, leaving them debt-hobbled to such a degree that servicing the debts eventually becomes impossible. The (predictable-) outcome occurs frequently enough with Apollo, that I view it as a standard Apollo business model. I’ve seen them play this game time and again. Verso, like Apollo’s prior ‘projects’ need not face bankruptcy – all that needs to happen is for Apollo to a)buy a substantial amount of Verso’s bonds at the steep discount provided by Mr. Market, then b) surrender it to Verso in return for equity. In this way, Verso could de-lever. It’s remaining bonds would no doubt substantially rebound in price, lowering its cost of capital.
But doing so, is not in Apollo’s playbook. They extract cash, they don’t contribute cash. I could readily cite other ‘red flags’ over the past year on Verso, but am running long. Attributing Verso’s problems to the regulators is diverting blame. By the way, why didn’t Riverpark mention Apollo, its control of Verso, and its sordid history with other investments?
I’ve a small ‘stub’ holding in RPHYX, having sold most of it earlier in the year as junk spreads kept widening. At that time, also sold a ‘starter position’ in RSIVX which was doing nothing. I was contemplating adding to my RPHYX position shortly, as I suspect junk may continue to be buoyed. Frankly, I’d no idea Verso was a significant holding of Riverpark’s. That it was (is ?) is troubling to me, given my familiarity with Verso -- Verso was never (in the past 3 years) a credit that a prudent portfolio manager would own – at least not without hedging it (possibly by shorting the equity).
After reading the Riverpark commentary, I am rather dis-inclined to add to my Riverpark position at this time. Their explanation of Verso is absent some critical understanding of what they invested my money in. Verso should have been a VERY EASY problem to keep out of the portfolio.

RE: RSIVX and RPHYX, nothing is working for me this year.

I asked a question as part of a different thread, but thought it worthy of its own limelight.
Here's part of that thread:
rphyx-rsivx-new-commentary-explains-mistakes-that-resulted-in-credit-losses
@David_Snowball commented on a possible alternative to RPHYX or RSIVX :
"...the best bogey I've got is Osterweis Strategic Income (OSTIX), which Mr. Sherman considers a legitimate peer. In their worst stretch, it took them nine months to recover from a drawdown. Since OSTIX is still below its previous high, the drawdown underway now might last longer. So maybe this is your "in a year or two" money, which implies judging performance over a couple year cycle."
This got me thinking and I commented back to David:
"Just picking up on your thoughts for OSTIX as part of someone's "in a year or two" money. I went a bit further and added other time frames as well as other fund considerations to create kind of a "fund ladder"."
For Less than 1 year money - PSHDX, BSBSX, FOSIX,
For 1 year money - RPHYX or RSIVX...or instead, maybe FIRJX or DLSNX
For 1-2 year money - OSTIX,
For 3-5 year money - PONDX, FAGIX
Anyone have thoughts on what your "fund ladder" might consist of?"

@David_Snowball,
Just picking up on your thoughts for OSTIX as part of someone's "in a year or two" money. I went a bit further and added other time frames as well as other fund considerations to create kind of a "fund ladder".
For less than 1 year money - PSHDX, BSBSX, FOSIX,
For 1 year money - RPHYX / RSIVX...or, maybe FIRJX or DLSNX
For 1-2 year money - OSTIX,
For 3-5 year money - PONDX, FAGIX
Anyone have thoughts on what your "fund ladder" might consist of?

FWIW, RSIVX is underperforming OSTIX by about 3% so far this year after outperforming it by around 2.6% last year. So this is no disaster though I do own it and I am a bit disappointed in two permanent losses of capital in a market that hasn't had all that many blow ups so far. If the discounts for closed end funds like DSL and BGH hold up for the rest of the year, come January I'll be sorely tempted to accept the greater risk and move there from RSIVX (tax considerations preclude me from considering it now).

@claimui thanks for this post. I had suspected the volatility might be due to holding thinly traded but "money good" bonds. This info reminds me of a comment Junkster made that basically predicted this outcome. I will think some more about current investment in RSIVX.

Thanks for posting, @clamui. It's good the manager is honest about his mistakes, but it is disappointing. I think your takeaways are wise. I've still got my retired mother in RSIVX, but it is only one of three bond funds I have her in for income.
RPHYX I hold, and it's outperforming money market with only a tad higher volatility, so I remain satisfied with it and hopeful that it will soon outperform some of its peers.

http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/News/RiverPark-Cohanzick_3Q15_Shareholder_Letter.pdf
- RPHYX was hurt by Goodman Networks, a pre-IPO company that the manager thought would be a "money-good" investment until the company's largest customer cut back on orders, and the company cancelled its IPO plans. RPHYX has since reduced its position in the company.
- RSIVX was hurt by three problems: (i) Goodman Networks, as above, (ii) Verso/NewPage, a bet on a merger between two paper companies that ended up getting dragged out and weakened by regulatory review, and (iii) Hunt Companies, a real estate firm that had promised to get credit ratings for its bonds, but then decided to keep its ratings private. RSIVX has reduced its positions in Goodman and Verso/NewPage, but the manager believes Hunt is still a "money-good" investment and is adding more.
My quick takeaways:
- Those who thought the funds' NAV drop was just due to "mark-to-market" pricing problems are going to be disappointed. It seems the manager has thrown in the towel on Goodman (for both) and Verso/NewPage (for RSIVX); they have already sold off at least some of those bonds, so those losses are locked in. For Hunt, the manager is optimistic, but I don't understand the rationale for the company wanting to keep its ratings private.
- Despite the manager's emphasis on making "money-good" investments, it is pretty clear that there are significant risks involved in the funds' investments. Presumably this is still much less than what a typical high-yield bond fund goes through.
- Although the funds are relatively diversified (compared to say, ZEOIX), it's a good reminder of how even just one mistake can impact the funds' performance.
For what it's worth, I continue to hold RPHYX, but have been considering switching or splitting with ZEOIX.

@expatsp said: "You guys are a tough audience. According to M*, RSIVX is a whopping 1.6% behind its benchmark over the last year. Any fund with a 6% yield is going to have some volatility. I remember in David's original write up that the manager's promise was to deliver 6-8% yield and more or less stable capital over a five year cycle. It seems to me he's on his way to meet that goal."
I agree. But, it will be interesting to read the 3rd quarter commentary to get David Sherman's take on the fund's recent performance.
Also, I agree with expatsp that PTIAX looks interesting (thanks to @TSP_Transfer ) . It's current investment mix appears to make it a "hybrid high yield fund" (to invent another category). M* says the fund has about 40% in municipal bonds and B as the average credit quality. Successfully blending those two types of bonds in one fund could serve to even out year to year performance. I wonder what other funds do that?
Here is the three year chart:
Chart

But wait--- there are even more "as of 9/30/2015" choices!
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/FactSheet/RiverPark_Strategic-Income-Fund_Fact-Sheet.pdf (see the pie)
vs.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=RSIVX&region=usa&culture=en_US
8% cash, or 20% cash-- you decide.
B= 32%, or 50.5?-- you decide.
<B= 23%, or 14.4%-- you decide.
Not rated? 12%, or 8.5%-- you decide.
'cause hell if I can tell you which figures are the correct ones...... whatever, I guess......

You guys are a tough audience. According to M*, RSIVX is a whopping 1.6% behind its benchmark over the last year. Any fund with a 6% yield is going to have some volatility.
I remember in David's original write up that the manager's promise was to deliver 6-8% yield and more or less stable capital over a five year cycle. It seems to me he's on his way to meet that goal.
But if stable capital is what you want on a daily or even monthly basis, you should certainly be elsewhere.
None of this is to say that there might not be better bond funds out there, and the ones listed here look good (PTIAX -- wow!) but I personally am giving RSIVX more of a chance.