Also Schwab MMF settles T+1 unlike Fidelity MMF which settles same day so another opportunity for Schwab to extract rent.
Well, sort of. Fidelity requires the purchase money to be available same day, which is the definition of "same day" settlement. But you don't start earning money in the new MMF account until the next day. And isn't that really what we care about here?
Here's an excerpt of a post by a Fidelity moderator on a Reddit thread:

Settlement for money market funds is generally same day. For anyone unfamiliar, the settlement date is the day on which payment for securities bought, or certificates for securities sold, must be in your account.
...
When you purchase a Fidelity mutual fund, they begin earning dividends or interest on the first business day after the effective purchase or trade date, including money market funds. The core position is the exception to this, as the core begins accruing interest once funds are posted after a deposit

https://www.reddit.com/r/fidelityinvestments/comments/159dtyj/settlement_time_for_money_market_fund_investments/
Contrast that with "true" T+0 MMF settlement. I purchased a Fidelity MMF at Merrill on June 28th (last trading day of the month). Had it started earning money the first business day (July 1) after the trade date, then I would have earned no divs in June. Yet I was credited with earnings for the month. The activity log reads: "PAY DATE 06/28/2024".
Here's an excerpt from the FZDXX prospectus - a higher yielding MMF available in a Fidelity retail account:

Shares purchased by all other orders generally begin to earn dividends on the first business day following the day of purchase.

Here's an excerpt from the FSIXX prospectus, another Fidelity MMF, one that is available to retail customers at Merrill:

Shares purchased by a wire order prior to 12:00 noon Eastern time for Tax-Exempt Portfolio, prior to 2:00 p.m. Eastern time for Treasury Only Portfolio, or prior to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time for Government Portfolio, Money Market Portfolio, and Treasury Portfolio, with receipt of the wire in proper form before the close of the Federal Reserve Wire System on that day, generally begin to earn dividends on the day of purchase.

BTW, Merrill sets an 11:45AM settlement time for FSIXX in order to get same day settlement. (If logged into Merrill, see here.) I guess it takes a little time to get the money wired to Fidelity.
FSIXX is a treasury only (state tax-exempt) MMF currently (as of July 16) offering a higher 7 day yield (5.18%) than does FZDXX (5.15%).

NYU law professor Daniel Hemel digs deep into the mechanics of the ETF BOXX and the fuzzy areas of tax laws (sections 1258 and 1092) that its tax deferral claims to exploits. He thinks that eventually there would be an IRS clarification or challenge that would negate much of the tax angle of BOXX. So, the play may really be whether the holders of BOXX will be grandfathered.
All this fancy footwork just to create money-market or T-Bill returns? But investors love new black-boxes.
https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/tax-trap-inside-boxx/2024/03/08/7j8x0

Today I received Vanguard Letter's # 4 & 5 =
telling me they have updated my Old email address = [email protected]
to New email address = [email protected]
YES FIVE LETTERS !!!!
I HOPE VANG.
NEW PRESIDENT WILL KICK SOME BUTT & AND FINIALLY PUT VANG BACK TO THIER FORMER COMPETANCE.
Ralph Etris

I think I'll just sit and wait for a bit. The muni's should gather a nice price increase while kicking off a fairly respectable taxable equivalent yield.

May buy VONG on pullback, certainly on a serious one. Or VONE. Am v v happy with +10% growth in positions taken in QLTY and JQUA at Fido (ML prohibits buying the former and does not allow reinvest w the latter!) months ago on pullback. Would that I had put in 5x.

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

@Baseball_Fan and @stillers,
This is not my thread (OP's) and so my apologies for butting in here. I read both of your posts.
From @stillers latest post, I gather that the total returns were reported in some parts of the report on a gross basis. It makes no difference to me if the presentation is qualified with a footnote; IMO, total return of a fund or investment should always be reported net of expenses. Whoever produced the total returns without deducting expenses loses credibility in my eye.
I guess the moral of the story for me is that one has to be circumspect before repeating others' claims. In this particular case, I doubt any forum members relied on historic information prior to the creation of the fund - I certainly did not. (Of course, I could be an exception as I tend to do research after initiating a position.)
I think it is time to direct all of our energies on to the fund and its management. I continue to own the fund but the manager's flippant attitude (may be just a writing style?) gives me a pause. At some point, I will have to decide whether to sell all or increase my holding in the fund, and my returns from the fund unlikely will be the determining factor. The manager is not going to miss me, given $6B in total AUM (inclusive of the 5,000 separate accounts).

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.

Size of R2000 is tiny % of the total market-cap (R3000). As noted in weekend Barron's,
"The SCs R2000/IWM now are near 20-year low at 5.2% (by market-cap; the recent peak was at 8.8% in 2006) of the total Russell R3000 universe."
It should be possible to calculate it as % of AAPL market cap too.
But that is why there are big moves in SC from small flows into it.
Edit/Add. AAPL is 6.27% of R3000 IWV. So, the entire R2000 (IWM) market-cap is 5.2/6.27 = 0.8294 or 82.94% of the market-cap of AAPL.
Note that LC don't have to tank for SC to rally. But if people only stopped believing that LC or LC-growth was a guaranteed path to success, then the rest of stocks will do better.

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.

@WABAC,
4% is nothing to sneeze about.
If you have held DIVO in 2022, do you by any chance know why about 50% of its distribution in that year was ROC? At least that is what M* shows. I am only curious. So, if you do not know the answer on top of your head, no need to research for me. Thanks

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.

@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.