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.

As Heezsafe alluded to, RSIVX is not really a total return fund. I held this fund for about a year and, while it distributed a nice dividend, it never held its NAV during that time. As a result, I continued to watch my principal drop. It wasn't my cup of tea. I chalk it up to lessons learned. I've had better results with ASHDX and ZEOIX.

Hi Hank, I don't know what M* page you were copying from as far as the RSIVX credit quality breakdown goes, but here are the figures from the page that's on the site now, with data as of 9/30.
In round #s, all of the A categories (AAA-AA-A) = 3%, BBB = 21%, BB = 3%, B = 51%, < B = 14%, NR = 9%. The average quality per M* is B, which is what D. Sherman said it would be at the launch of the fund.
So overall, it's ~ 24% IG (with most of that at the lower end of IG), 68% non-IG, and 9% unrated.

I'm not going to be hasty to dump RSIVX yet...

I wouldn't think of RSIVX as a multi-sector bond fund, even though M* puts it there (IMO, incorrectly). [If it is multi-sector, then where are the sectors (PLURAL) that you see, M*? All I see is elevated cash and corp bonds, most of them being below investment-grade.... sort of like OSTIX, which you list as HY, and which has an even lower duration than RSIVX]. Viewed as a short-intermediate HY bond fund, I think its YTD performance would still rate a middle-range disappointment.
For alternatives, see other funds mentioned here:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/67243/#Comment_67243
For recent discussion, see:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/22813/nathan-s-famous-hot-dogs-and-rsivx#latest
@Ralph If you aren't incredibly yield-hungry, are more of a total return kinda guy for this one, and are looking for something more in line with what you thought you'd be getting with RSIVX, I'd take a serious look at what willmatt72 suggested with ASHDX (if you can get the D class in your Roth). The lead manager, Douglas Forsyth, has taken on some additional administrative duties recently, but everything he has done at Alliance has turned out very well for investors for quite some time.
For comparative purposes, go to this Compare graph from the Fidelity site I have set up for you, and fiddle with the YTD and 1 yr performance. You might find the results interesting/helpful. If you have other funds in mind and want to remove one on the list, simply click the big X next to the one you wish to vanquish, then enter your new one in the Add Symbol window. [remember to click on the various Tabs; a lot of additional info there]
https://www.fidelity.com/fund-screener/compare.shtml#!&amp;fIds=RSIVX,ARTFX,PRHYX,ASHDX,OSTIX&amp;tab=ic

Disappointed in RISVX PERFORMANCE-- YR. TO DATE =MINUS 1.67 % -- 12 MONTHS = DOWN 1.70 %
-- EXPENSE RATIO =1.24 %
I'am aware from M* 'QUICK RANK' TOOL OF A NUMBER OF MSB Funds that are in the BLACK for the same time frames,
and with lower.ER
However, I would appreciate any suggestions & advice from the pros here @ MFO.
Thanks
Ralph

Can anyone offer a reason why ZEOIX is holding up better?

From a quick glance, the main reason must be that it's not as junky as RSIVX. (See the yield difference and the credit quality distribution.)

Bonds should return principal if held till maturity. Is there any risk that will not be the case for short term HY funds held for 3-5 years?
I am thinking about rising interest rate environment with falling bond prices. Can, for example RSIVX, be considered as good and safe investment, if held for 5 years, for investors who care about total return?

I never could figure out why so many here are enamored with RSIVX, mediocre since inception at best and underperforming this year. As to your question - with anything in the junk bond market you have to think *default* It's not a given there would never be a default among the portfolio of this or that fund that holds junk corporates.

Bonds should return principal if held till maturity. Is there any risk that will not be the case for short term HY funds held for 3-5 years?
I am thinking about rising interest rate environment with falling bond prices. Can, for example RSIVX, be considered as good and safe investment, if held for 5 years, for investors who care about total return?

I am still in RPHYX. I noticed that the NAV has dipped over the past year (it used to be consistently above $9.95, and now it's below $9.85). Also, total return now seems around 2.5% instead of 3+%, so they are below their original goal of 300-400 basis points above money market.
However, it is still relatively stable and giving positive return in excess of other cash alternatives, so my basis for holding this fund has not changed.
I passed on RSIVX since the additional risk/reward makes it more like other corporate bond funds -- of which there are many. Their stated goal was total returns in the range of 7-8%. The latest commentary linked above reports that RSIVX has a 7.7% yield to maturity, so maybe they will yet meet that goal. Personally I'm okay with the 2.5% at RPHYX and taking my risks elsewhere.

On RSIVX, I think it depends on whether you invest primarily for income or for total return. If the former, it still looks fairly good. One indicator: last December, in the HY selloff, it did better than its peers/near-peers of the short & junky persuasion.
If you look at total return, though, it's been bringing up the rear; it's actually negative on TR for the past year. Other short & junky funds, for example ASHDX (in that case, with higher credit quality) have done considerably better.
I'm more of a TR investor and adjust holdings relatively frequently, and I got out of RSIVX several months back. But then I'm almost completely out of HY at the moment.

I made the mistake of owning this fund (RSIVX) for total return and saw that it couldn't maintain its NAV while distributing income. Its barely above water YTD, so I would call that disappointing given its goals. I own ZEOIX and ASHDX, which seem to be less volatile and holding up better in the current environment.

On RSIVX, I think it depends on whether you invest primarily for income or for total return. If the former, it still looks fairly good. One indicator: last December, in the HY selloff, it did better than its peers/near-peers of the short & junky persuasion.
If you look at total return, though, it's been bringing up the rear; it's actually negative on TR for the past year. Other short & junky funds, for example ASHDX (in that case, with higher credit quality) have done considerably better.
I'm more of a TR investor and adjust holdings relatively frequently, and I got out of RSIVX several months back. But then I'm almost completely out of HY at the moment.

RSIVX has had a pretty lousy last month (down about 2%) for whatever reasons (probably just that the high yield market is having problems), but for the year it's still only done about .5% worse than Vanguard's Total Bond Fund. I'd have to say that one bad month, which the manager has always insisted would be reversed because he's invested in "money good" securities, isn't enough to make me particularly worried.
Incidentally, my understanding of the fund is that the manager is confident that even in the worst-case scenario of bankruptcy he's bought securities that would be made whole in bankruptcy proceedings. Speaking as a shareholder, I hope he's right.

I found his shareholder's letters convincing: http://www.riverparkfunds.com/Funds/ShortTermHighYield/Commentary.aspx and http://www.riverparkfunds.com/Funds/StrategicIncome/Commentary.aspx.
They're both performing as advertised: RPHYX has been quite stable, RSIVX less so, but the yield is good and I see no reason why the principal won't recover. None of the holdings have gone bankrupt. RSIVX was advertised as a fund that would produce 6-8% yearly income and, despite fluctuations, end up with at least the same principal over a five year period.
I have my retired mother in RSIVX. It pays almost as much than an annuity despite her advanced age, and unless it goes to zero, it will end up a better long term investment.

I reduced RSIVX and put some of the proceeds into RPHYX.

I've held RPHYX and RSIVX for some time. Is anyone backing away from these two and if so, why?