MRFOX is now available at Fido. 10K for both a regular and an IRA. $49.95 TF
Schwab Regular 10K, IRA 1K. TF $49.95

Here's hoping you waited for my reply?
Ah, so finally some real, however badly dated (June 2020) and at first swipe, marginally useful support. If you were an auditee of mine, I'd just STOP my review here and kindly ask you to, you know, try again.
But given you ain't, I trudged on, and glad I did because it's an eye-opener...
"Marshfield Equity Composite Positions" (MECP) does not appear to be defined. Maybe I missed it but I looked pretty hard. Without that, as reader of this data, I STOP right there and find out WTH is included in that word salad and its data. I then massage that data and carve out whatever data might be relevant.
Scary footnote at t/m "*" on the bottom of Pages 6-10 about MECP Gross data that above is compared to the S&P data: (paraphrasing) "MECP Gross does not reflect the payment of advisory fees and other expenses. Go to Appendix B."
Say what?
Lost further interest in this dated data there and almost skipped looking at Appendix B. But alas, at Appendix B, TR is shown net of fees. So, why then...Ugh!
(NOTE: IF on this thread you have been unknowingly quoting Gross MECP performance data, you will find significantly LOWER MECP TRs Net of Fees on Page 19, Top Left, Col 3.)
So I looked at Page 10. It shows splits for periods that a prospective investor really doesn't care about in relation to the notions purported on this thread and does nothing to answer the salient question of MECP performance being predictive of MRFOX performance given those splits.
What you need to show to support your notion that MECP (again, whatever that is) performance (paraphrasing) "will probably predict" (and more importantly, DID predict, since we have 8 1/2+ years of MRFOX performance data) is the respective performance data NET OF ALL FEES for (and again, ALL of the MECP data could be irrelevant until it is known what is actually in MECP data) :
MECP: Inception (?) to 12/27/15 (date before MRFOX inception)
I have no data available to calculate that
S&P: MECP Inception to 12/27/15
I would need to know the exact MECP inception data
MRFOX: 12/28/15-Current +277%
S&P (using eg FXAIX): 12/28/15-Current +221%
And let's see what you get, eh?
Good luck carving that out!
Bottom Line: This (to me at least) is an unnecessary exercise for any prospective MRFOX investor as we already have 8 1/2+ YEARS of MRFOX performance, we have no idea WTH is in MECP, and the data this entity provides APPEARS TO SHOW all comparisons to the S&P at Gross (until you get to Appendix B and do your own math). IF that truly is the case, they got no shot at any of my investment dollars.
Disclaimer: Sorry, if I was still back in the mode of running audit departments, I would have been far more thorough with my review! But it's a start, eh?
I'll wait for your reply!

Factoid City dinky linky:

“Hedge funds and traders held record short positions in small cap stocks going into last week’s CPI report and were caught off guard by the lower than expected inflation,” said Cole Wilcox, chief executive officer of Longboard Asset Management. “This sparked the violent rally in small caps.”
Data on Russell 2000 futures show that traders had pushed their exposure to the most net-short since 2023. About 25% of the $68 billion iShares Russell 2000 ETF’s free float is held short, compared with 9.9% for the $564 billion SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust and 7.6% for the $302 billion Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1, according to data from S3 Partners.
[snip]
The earnings outlook for small caps has started to improve as well. Consensus revenue and net income growth forecasts for the Russell 2000 show a strong recovery in late 2024, with it approaching the S&P 500, according to an analysis by RBC Capital Markets. The rate of Russell 2000 earnings estimates getting revised higher has also started to move back to parity with the S&P, strategists led by Lori Calvasina found.

I've been looking to dump NUSC and FSSNX from the IRA, but I think I'll let them run a little.

LC to SC rotation started on July 10 & can not longer be ruled out as a 1-day fluke.
Ratio IWM:SPY stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=IWM%3AONEQ&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p37185738747
Ratio IWM:ONEQ stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=IWM%3AONEQ&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p04805111262
Also, rotation from growth to cyclicals,
Ratio DIA:QQQ stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=DIA%3AQQQ&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p19698173155
In the ratio chart of X:Y, up-trend means X outperforming Y, down-trend means X underperforming Y, sideways means X and Y in-line.

Dennis Baran did a write up on MRFOX in the Feb. 2019 MFO commentary. He mentions that the funds' philosophy, process and discipline have been used successfully by the managers since 2008 with winning results and gives data on that SMA method. As Dennis points out, SMA data may give a "sense" of the mutual funds possible longer-term performance. A sense certainly isn't exact fund data of course.

The fund is managed according to the same philosophy, process, discipline, and objectives as its SMA Core Equity product, which allows us to get a sense of the strategy’s long-term performance. Since 1989, that APR is 10.61% vs. the S&P 500 9.27%. That’s net of fees with an ER of 1.25%, higher than the fund. In 2008, its net return was -16.45% vs. the S&P 500’s -36.99%.

FWIW, I don't invest in this fund and don't plan to. But history of how management handles their Separately Managed Accounts (SMA), seems relevant to how they run their mutual fund. Do SMA results translate to what to expect in a mutual fund? Probably not exactly, but the managers methods and process probably do.
From their website:

Separately Managed Accounts (SMA)
Our SMAs are highly concentrated, typically holding 16-20 stocks. We are disciplined adherents of our process and are extremely selective regarding the stocks we want to own. We seek resilient companies with long-term competitive advantages, and we require a margin of safety when making a new stock purchase. Moreover, we are willing to hold cash when we cannot find the opportunities we seek. Historically, our SMAs have been characterized by low turnover and less volatility than the market.

Type that in your browser @stillers and look at page 10. I'll wait for your reply
Kind regards
Baseball fan

@stillers I think you might have gotten some faulty info. This is from the basic info tab on a manager database I have access to. It has returns going back over 20 years for this strategy, with said returns being provided by the manager on a quarterly basis.
STRATEGY OVERVIEW
Manager: Marshfield Associates
Strategy name: Marshfield Core Value Equity
Year of inception: 1989
Benchmark: S&P 500 Composite
Product Group/Category: US Equity, Large Cap Value
Status: Open to All Investors
Strategy Assets: $US6.0 billion as at 31 Mar 2024
Number of clients: 4659
Outperformance target: Not Provided
Expected tracking error: We are a concentrated manager of about 20 names - don't manage tracking error
Number of stocks: 17.00
Portfolio manager: Christopher M. Niemczewski
Marketing contact(s)
Kim Vinick
Richard Seaton

”There is speculative excess today relative to recent years.” - David Giroux, T. Rowe Price
(From Barron’s “Mid-Year Roundtable” July 15 issue)
Brilliant deduction, Watson!
Giroux’s Picks: Aurora Innovation / AUR, Danaher / DHR, Revvity / RVTY
And he still likes utilities.

AUR up 38% since this was posted by @hank

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has just launched an ETF that offers 100% downside protection to investors. The new ETF (MAXJ) will have its maximum gains capped at 10.6% while protecting against the downside for a duration of 12 months. 0.5% ER
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/how-good-is-blackrock-s-new-100-downside-hedge-etf/ar-BB1pdRfO?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Hearing stuff like that makes me wonder if we’re approaching a market top? “Risk-free equity investing” (So easy a cave man could do it).
I confess to not understanding the finer workings of these funds very well. That may be a plus. As I suspect a lot of people pouring money in don’t understand them (or equity investing in general) very well either. Never mind that the guarantee appears to last only 12 months. To some that’s an eternity. Hell, might “hit the jackpot” well before the term expires! Bail out at 364 days and let the next greater fool investor buy it.

So to try to get some, you know, FACTS, about what one poster is incessantly claiming about prior performance on this thread,
I phoned Marshfield today.
Here's what a, LT, experienced Marshfield representative told me TODAY, quoting her pretty much verbatim in BOLD:
She has NEVER in her life heard the words "Marshfield Equity Composite" (that another poster is repetitively using on this thread and citing TRs for vs S&P) strung together in that sequence.
She has NO IDEA what that is, what it might reference, or how it might be calculated. It is not anything Marshfield calculates. (Note that the poster has NEVER posted any support or links for it and I guess I now know why.)
MRFOX incepted on 12/28/15 (as I previously posted). It was a NEW fund and NOT the second coming of ANY previous advisor/private/public fund that those PM's managed.
ANY prior performance of ANY other Marshfield funds, advisor, private or public, is irrelevant to the performance of MRFOX.
==============================
So, there's that.
And based on that he's my Conclusions pending any other FACTS:
(1) MRFOX has ~8 1/2 years of performance data. That's the data I will use to review it, and the data that I suggest any reasonably intelligent investor should use as well.
(2) It's the internet folks. Be careful out here!

Collecting dividends. Not buying. Seems to me the best thing is to grow cash and buy on a pullback. No pullback? Fine with me. BCE Bell Canada held back 15% of divvie for Canada tax. I can live with it. (15 July.) Divvie was smaller than expected. M* is surely using CAD numbers. Now I know.

”July 7 - Charles Schwab upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Keefe Bruyette.”

From Bloomberg today:
“Charles Schwab Corp. shares suffered their biggest intraday drop since the depths of last year’s regional-bank crisis after the investing giant reported that fewer clients opened new brokerage accounts than analysts expected.”
You can buy SCHW for considerably less today than when the projection cited by @Crash was made. Assuming the projection (dated on a Sunday) was based on SCHW’s Friday, July 5 closing price of $73.20, the current price of around $68 is about 5% lower.
At 12:00 PM today: SCHW - 9% @ $68.23
As for the big brokerages … Their profitability is linked in part to the performance of the equity markets. A hot (frothy?) market like today’s causes their AUM to increase (and profits to rise) even if they attract no new money. In a deteriorating market AUMs decrease (absent any new money). If I wanted to hedge against a big market decline, brokerages wouldn’t be my first choice. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule.
UPDATE: SCHW closed today down -10.18% at a price of $67.43. Best to ignore these gurus who “upgrade” and “downgrade” stocks for us bumpkins. Clearly Keefe Bruyette didn’t know what they were talking about. Not unusual either as these kind of stock guru grades go.

Sure. 1987 never happened. Nobody ever lost money dynamic hedging.
The name is misleading. they plan on buying and selling puts and calls along with cash and making daily decisions on what to do. So much fun.

Not 100% downside protection but another hedge equity ETF, KSPY. Dynamic hedging? This time from Kraneshares. Is this an indication Kraneshares feels a need to diversify from their China bets?
https://kraneshares.com/kraneshares-launches-kspy-tracking-an-index-powered-by-hedgeye-research-designed-to-reduce-volatility-and-provide-a-downside-hedge-on-sp-500/

Sold my large holding of CMS preferreds at breakeven. They were bouncing all over the place in large ways in recent weeks (moreso than any other preferred I've owned) and more to the point, Schwab never could get the income projections or cost basis right on them, which was annoying me no end.
Also in the process of selling HESM for 10% or so gains. Lots of insider selling due to the CVX-HES merger and uncertainty over how the CVX-HESM relationship might look once the HES deal goes through.
Both turned out to be short-term trades.
Money going into SGOV until I find other uses for it in the QDI space.

I profiled this fund in 2018. https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/07/holbrook-income-fund-hobix/ However, I didn't buy it.

From David Sherman's Q1 2024 commentary: https://blog.crossingbridgefunds.com/blog/q1-2024-commentary-getting-off-the-benchmark
"There are good players overseas - Having been involved in the Nordic high yield market since the mid-2000s, we have developed our knowledge base and found opportunities in bonds with better credit metrics, higher yields and better covenants than we find in the U.S. high yield market. By comparison to the U.S. market which has approximately $1.4 tn in bonds outstanding, the Nordic market is tiny, but growing fast, from less than €14.0 bn in 2007 to over €56.0 bn in 2023. So far, we have found sufficient new issuance activity and secondary market liquidity to justify our participation in this market. With respect to yield, the graph above shows that the average credit spread for Nordic high yield bonds has been consistently higher than the option-adjusted spread of the ICE BofA US High Yield Index, on average by 211 basis points, since early 2018. In its earlier days, the Nordic market was highly concentrated in oil & gas and shipping but is much more diverse today. Shipping represents about 7% of the market and oil & gas represents approximately 16%.24 The typical Nordic high yield credit has lower net leverage than we find in the U.S. Nordic bonds generally have 3- to 5-year maturities, are floating rate, are secured by assets and provide strong bondholder protections including debt incurrence and dividend limitations and, sometimes, maintenance requirements (e.g. minimum liquidity). The Nordic bond market reminds us of the leveraged loan market of the early 1990s when investors achieved significantly better returns with less risk than the leveraged loans we see today."
***
But, that's not all. Here's a recent press release on an investment by Crossing Bridge in a Nordic market investment manager.
PLEASANTVILLE, N.Y. , June 28, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- CrossingBridge Advisors, LLC ("CrossingBridge") is pleased to announce a strategic partnership with NCI Advisory A/S ("NCI Advisory"), a strong performing debt asset management firm based in Denmark .
David Sherman , CEO of CrossingBridge, states, "The Nordic debt market has provided us with attractive investment opportunities. Establishing a strategic cooperation with an experienced, local team is crucial for our future growth in the Nordics. We have worked with the NCI Advisory team on several transactions and found a good cultural and strategic fit, as well as a shared approach to investing. We see this strategic partnership as key to our ambition to become a leading Nordic high-yield asset manager."
Jørgen Beuchert, CEO of NCI Advisory, comments, "We believe that the Nordic debt market will become even more interesting in the future, particularly for experienced, active managers capable of handling complex situations. This strategic partnership marks a significant milestone in NCI Advisory's growth and expansion plans. CrossingBridge brings a wealth of expertise, which complements NCI Advisory's 16-year track record of delivering attractive returns across more than 100 exits. Our partnership establishes a strong foundation for growth and opens opportunities for additional debt investment strategies."
About NCI Advisory
NCI Advisory is a Nordic debt asset manager, founded in 2008 and owned by Jørgen Beuchert. NCI Advisory has EUR 100 million under management and operates in the primary and secondary Nordic high-yield bonds and direct loans market. The company's oldest fund has generated an average return of 10.1% since 2008 and paid an average of 9.3% in dividends.
About CrossingBridge
CrossingBridge Advisors LLC, founded by David Sherman and owned by ENDI Corp. (OTCQB: ENDI ), has more than USD $2.9 billion under management focusing on Corporate Credit strategies. CrossingBridge has a deep and highly experienced team led by the CEO and majority shareholder, David Sherman .

From Form N-1A:
"The Adviser manages currency risk, when appropriate, by hedging foreign currency exposure typically,
and primarily, with forward currency contracts. A forward currency contract is an obligation to purchase
or sell a specific currency at a future date, which may be any fixed number of days from the date
of the contract agreed upon by the parties. The Fund may also manage currency risk by investing
in bonds denominated in U.S. dollars, such as Yankee bonds."

My auto/home insurance is up for renewal in a few days/weeks respectively.
Premiums increased significantly over the past two years.
I decided to obtain insurance quotes since I haven't shopped for coverage in several years.
I discovered several highly-rated firms don't sell insurance in my state of residence (Washington):
1) NJM
2) Erie
3) Auto-Owners
4) Farm Bureau Property & Casualty
I can not obtain auto insurance from the following carriers since two claims were filed to repair
windshield "rock chips." The windshield was not replaced and this cost only $50 - $100 per occurrence.
1) American Family
2) Pemco
State Farm is my current insurance carrier.
I contacted Amica and received a bundled quote which was ~$115 more.
Home insurance only from American Family was ~$60 more with slightly decreased coverage.
An independent insurance agent was also engaged.
The agent provided a bundled quote from Travelers which was ~$465 more.
Their quote for home insurance only (from Allstate) was ~$975 more!
Auto insurance combined with umbrella insurance from Progressive was ~$50 less.
Although my premiums increased significantly over the past two years,
I didn't find any highly-rated insurers with lower total costs in the current marketplace.
I may engage another independent insurance agent to seek better deals.