ETF Foundry
DRAFT — HYPOTHETICAL MODEL PORTFOLIO — NOT A REGISTERED FUND, NOT AN OFFER TO SELL SECURITIES, NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.
value factor · long-only model fund

Foundry Energy Book-to-Market Value Factor ETF

ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly

FBMEHYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Since ’99
+192%
Expense Ratio
0.45%
placeholder
Holdings
25
cap-weighted
Inception
Aug 2022
placeholder
Full Sharpe
0.29
Ann. Return (LS)
6.0%
Ann. Volatility
20.6%
Max Drawdown
-67.7%
Test Sharpe ’19–26
0.10
Test FF5 α (ann.)
1.4%
vs Fama-French 5
Test FF5 α t-stat
0.17
not significant
Monthly turnover
13%
of the long leg, per rebalance
Cumulative return (LS)
192%
over 328 months
This fund holds the long leg only
Long leg Sharpe
0.42
what this fund holds
Long leg ann. return
14.3%
buyable, long-only
Long-short Sharpe
0.29
requires shorting
Bottom bucket ann. return
8.3%
the basket shorted

Every other metric on this page is the long-shortstrategy, which needs a short book. This fund is the long leg alone, so these are the figures for what it actually holds. The bottom-bucket number is that basket’s own return — not short P&L.

Hypothetical growth of $1 — long-short backtest

Gross of the placeholder expense ratio and trading costs · not investor results

328 months

Holdings

Every constituent of the long leg — sort, search or filter by sector

25 of 25 · 100.0% of book
TickerCompanySectorMarket capWeight
1EXE
EXPAND ENERGY CORPEnergy$21.08B
24.52%
2SM
SM ENERGY COEnergy$7.51B
8.73%
3PBF
PBF ENERGY INCEnergy$7.42B
8.63%
4CHRD
CHORD ENERGY CORPEnergy$7.21B
8.39%
5MTDR
MATADOR RESOURCES COEnergy$6.68B
7.77%
6RIG
TRANSOCEAN LTDEnergy$5.74B
6.67%
7MUR
MURPHY OIL CORPEnergy$5.28B
6.14%
8CNX
CNX RESOURCES CORPEnergy$4.71B
5.48%
9CRGY
CRESCENT ENERGY COEnergy$3.55B
4.13%
10BKV
BKV CORPEnergy$2.84B
3.30%
11TALO
TALOS ENERGY INCEnergy$2.49B
2.90%
12MNR
MACH NATURAL RESOURCES LPEnergy$2.21B
2.57%
13LPG
DORIAN LPG LTDEnergy$1.76B
2.04%
14HLX
HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP INCEnergy$1.41B
1.64%
15VTOL
BRISTOW GROUP INCEnergy$1.31B
1.52%
16HPK
HIGHPEAK ENERGY INCEnergy$931M
1.08%
17REPX
RILEY EXPLORATION PERMIAN INCEnergy$759M
0.88%
18TXO
TXO PARTNERS LPEnergy$707M
0.82%
19VTS
VITESSE ENERGY INCEnergy$664M
0.77%
20SD
SANDRIDGE ENERGY INCEnergy$503M
0.59%
21SMC
SUMMIT MIDSTREAM CORPEnergy$407M
0.47%
22RNGR
RANGER ENERGY SERVICES INCEnergy$371M
0.43%
23PED
PEDEVCO CORPEnergy$161M
0.19%
24NINE
NINE ENERGY SERVICE INCEnergy$158M
0.18%
25BOOM
DMC GLOBAL INCEnergy$128M
0.15%

Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $85.99B. Hypothetical model holdings — not a registered fund’s portfolio.

Sector Breakdown

1 sectors
Energy
100.0%

Portfolio Style

Size × value map of the long-leg book

25 classified
Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
42%3
9%1
·
30%6
9%2
·
9%11
2%2
·

Share of long-leg capital by market cap × book-to-market, using terciles of the 137-name universe at July 2026. Rows: Large ≥ $7.1B, Small < $1.8B. Columns: Value ≥ 0.64, Growth < 0.40 B/M. The dot marks the capital-weighted centroid of the book — 70% toward Large, 10% toward Growth. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.

Tilt over time
Size tilt70% → Large
SmallLarge
Value ↔ growth tilt10% → Growth
ValueGrowth

Capital-weighted centroid of the long leg, December 1999July 2026; the right-hand end is the same value as the box’s dot. 25 names now. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not P&L.

Constraint checks

How this book measures against the concentration and liquidity rules — as implemented here

How this book was built

These are UNCONSTRAINED factor sleeves: the construction pipeline sorts on a signal and cap-weights the top bucket, applying no issuer cap, no industry cap and no liquidity screen beyond the universe filter. A failing test therefore reports a constraint that was never applied during construction — it is not a defect in the strategy and not an error in the data. The same signal can be solved subject to these constraints.

Passed
5
Failed
1
Not tested
1
Independent checks
7

7 independent checks plus 1 arithmetically implied by another check (RIC / IRC 851(b)(3)(A) 50% bucket), which is reported separately so the tally cannot overstate scrutiny.

1 of 7 checks could not be tested. Those are neither passes nor failures — they are gaps in what the data can answer, and they are excluded from the passed count above rather than folded into it.

  • With respect to 75% of total assets, no more than 5% may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

    Required
    >= 75.0%
    Actual
    63.7%
    Margin
    -11.3%
  • No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

    Required
    <= 25.0%
    Actual
    24.5%
    Margin
    0.5%

    Close to the line. The engine flags this verdict as one a routine data rebuild could flip. Read it as borderline rather than settled — the margin beside it is the whole story.

Reported separately — arithmetically implied

Engineering approximation of the cited rules for a DRAFT / HYPOTHETICAL model portfolio that is not a registered fund. This reports whether the portfolio passes the stated test AS IMPLEMENTED HERE; it is not a compliance opinion and is not a statement that any fund is compliant. Real filings need securities counsel.

1 verdict(s) sit within 1.0pp of their limit and can be flipped by a routine data rebuild; do not headline them, and always show the margin.

Data version — panel=20260719T025334 rows=2239262 asof=202607 issuers=20260719T014536 rates=20260804T224700

Measured on the 2026-07 formation date across 25 holdings (cap-weighted). A different formation date can produce different verdicts.

Derivatives risk (Rule 18f-4)

Whether this long-only book is subject to the VaR tests at all

This assessment describes the long-only book this fund holds — the top bucket only.

Governing rule
Rule 18f-4(c)(4) limited derivatives user exception

This fund QUALIFIES for the limited-derivatives-user exception, so it is excepted from the VaR tests; the ratio below is informational, not the operative limit.

Limited derivatives user exceptionby construction

Rule 18f-4(c)(4): a fund whose derivatives exposure (gross notional, including the value of assets sold short) is <= 10% of net assets is excepted from the VaR tests and the full derivatives risk management program.

Qualifies
Required
<= 10% of net assets
Exposure
0% of net assets
Margin
+10pp

No confidence interval: this follows from portfolio construction, not from an estimate.

Rule 18f-4(c)(2)(i): fund VaR at 99% over 20 trading days must not exceed 200% of the designated reference portfolio's VaR on the same basis.

Informational — does not govern

This fund is excepted from the VaR tests, so the ratio below is context rather than the operative limit. It is shown because it is still a description of the book’s risk, not because it decides anything.

Measured
2.2 (95% CI 1.5-2.5)
x reference VaR
Limit
2.00x
<= 2.00x reference VaR
Fund VaR
21.4%
99% / 20d
Reference
9.6%
FF5 market (mkt)

historical method · 328 monthly observations · about 3.3 in the 99% tail · paired percentile bootstrap over months

Same test, three estimators
historical
2.22x
over
parametric
2.19x
over
cornish fisher
2.78x
over

The estimators agree, which is mild evidence the number isn’t an artefact of one method.

Engineering approximation of SEC Rule 18f-4 for research display. Not a compliance opinion and not a determination that any fund is compliant. Hypothetical model portfolio, not a registered fund.

The research long-short construction behind this factor does not qualify for this exception — a dollar-neutral book counts its full short notional, which is 100% of net assets against a 10% threshold. This product sidesteps that by holding the long leg alone, which is also why the long-leg Sharpe is reported separately throughout the site.

See the long-short verdict on the factor page →

Since publication

Did the edge survive the paper coming out?

published 1980
Entirely since publication
All 328 months of our record post-date the 1980 paper.
Sharpe 0.296.0% p.a.April 1999July 2026

There is no “before” to compare against — the predictor was already public when our data begins, so every month shown is out-of-sample relative to the original study.

Split at January of the year after the factor was published. The post-publication stretch IS genuinely out-of-sample relative to the original study -- the predictor was public by then -- so it speaks to whether the effect survived being known. Nothing is fitted here, so this is performance SINCE PUBLICATION, not validation of a model. Note the 'pre' side is our data before publication (our panel starts ~1999), NOT the study's original in-sample period, which usually ran decades earlier; a decay figure compares before-vs-after within our sample and is not a comparison against the published result.

Consistency across eras

Is this record broadly durable, or one regime?

26 windows
Positive windows
58%
15 of 26 3-year windows made money
Worst window
-0.84
Sharpe, April 2012 – March 2015
April 1999July 2026
Median Sharpe
0.06
Dispersion
0.70
Best window
1.51

3-year rolling windows, stepping 1 year (26 windows). Dispersion is the spread of window Sharpes — higher means the record depends more on which era you look at.

Rules-based factors fit no parameters, so these windows are not out-of-sample tests and do not validate a fitted model. They show whether the factor's record is consistent across eras or driven by one regime.

Returns

Long leg is what this fund holds — long-short is shown for reference

since April 1999
Trailing
PeriodLong legLong-short
1 yearcum.50.6%13.4%
3 yearsp.a.10.3%-5.7%
5 yearsp.a.27.8%5.3%
10 yearsp.a.5.1%2.1%
Since inceptionp.a.8.6%4.0%
Calendar years
YearLong legLong-short
20267 mo39.4%2.0%
20251.1%2.8%
20244.4%-15.3%
202314.3%11.8%
202275.4%22.2%
202177.7%32.8%
2020-49.0%-14.3%
2019-18.3%-28.8%
2018-29.4%5.8%
2017-16.7%-2.2%
201638.7%13.8%
2015-48.8%-24.1%
2014-17.9%-18.2%
201333.5%1.0%
20123.3%-1.6%
20112.3%5.1%
201035.2%11.8%
200956.6%23.2%
2008-25.4%65.9%
200731.2%-15.0%
200614.7%-3.3%
200534.0%-13.9%
200444.3%5.8%
200331.2%9.5%
2002-23.4%-15.3%
20018.6%50.6%
200066.5%50.4%
19999 mo8.3%8.2%

Long leg = the top bucket this fund holds; long-short additionally shorts the bottom bucket and is not achievable in a long-only vehicle. Trailing figures run through July 2026: 1 year is a plain cumulative 12-month return (cum.), 3 years and longer are annualised (p.a.). Years marked with a month count are partial. These match the fact sheet’s tables by construction. Hypothetical backtest, gross of the placeholder expense ratio and trading costs — not investor results.

Fund Facts

Ticker (pseudo)FBME
IssuerETF Foundry Research (hypothetical)
SeriesHypothetical Model Portfolio Series (not a registered trust)
Expense ratio0.45% (placeholder)
Inception2022-08-18 (placeholder)
Listing exchangeNot listed (hypothetical)
CUSIPNot applicable (hypothetical model portfolio)
RebalanceMonthly
Holdings as ofJuly 2026
Total mkt cap (long leg)$85.99B

Methodology

The Foundry Energy Book-to-Market Value Factor ETF tracks a rules-based model that ranks Energy common stocks each month by a Book-to-Market Value signal and holds the top quintile with the highest values. Signals are computed from point-in-time Sharadar fundamentals and total-return prices. The portfolio reconstitutes monthly and is cap-weighted within the long leg.

This is a hypothetical model portfolio for research display only — not a registered fund, not an offer, and not investment advice.

Documents (draft — hypothetical)

Auto-generated from the model’s metrics and current holdings. Every document is labeled DRAFT / hypothetical.

Summary Prospectus

Objective, fees, strategy, and key risks.

View →
Prospectus

Full strategy, model methodology, and risks.

View →
Statement of Additional Information

Policies, construction, and governance.

View →
Fact Sheet

One-page snapshot with top holdings.

View →
Daily Holdings

Full current constituent list.

View →

DRAFT — HYPOTHETICAL MODEL PORTFOLIO — NOT A REGISTERED FUND, NOT AN OFFER TO SELL SECURITIES, NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.