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

Foundry Energy Gross Margin Factor ETF

ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly

FGREHYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Since ’99
−20%
Expense Ratio
0.45%
placeholder
Holdings
26
cap-weighted
Inception
Dec 2019
placeholder
Full Sharpe
0.03
Ann. Return (LS)
0.5%
Ann. Volatility
16.0%
Max Drawdown
-68.8%
Test Sharpe ’19–26
-0.18
Test FF5 α (ann.)
-6.1%
vs Fama-French 5
Test FF5 α t-stat
-0.86
not significant
Monthly turnover
6%
of the long leg, per rebalance
Cumulative return (LS)
-20%
over 331 months
This fund holds the long leg only
Long leg Sharpe
0.43
what this fund holds
Long leg ann. return
13.6%
buyable, long-only
Long-short Sharpe
0.03
requires shorting
Bottom bucket ann. return
13.1%
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

331 months

Holdings

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

26 of 26 · 100.0% of book
TickerCompanySectorMarket capWeight
1FANG
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY INCEnergy$55.01B
22.00%
2EQT
EQT CORPEnergy$31.00B
12.40%
3TPL
TEXAS PACIFIC LAND CORPEnergy$28.67B
11.47%
4WES
WESTERN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS LPEnergy$18.10B
7.24%
5PR
PERMIAN RESOURCES CORPEnergy$16.92B
6.77%
6VNOM
VIPER ENERGY INCEnergy$15.93B
6.37%
7DTM
DT MIDSTREAM INCEnergy$14.80B
5.92%
8AM
ANTERO MIDSTREAM CORPEnergy$10.73B
4.29%
9LB
LANDBRIDGE CO LLCEnergy$8.89B
3.56%
10HESM
HESS MIDSTREAM LPEnergy$8.32B
3.33%
11SM
SM ENERGY COEnergy$7.51B
3.00%
12MTDR
MATADOR RESOURCES COEnergy$6.68B
2.67%
13MGY
MAGNOLIA OIL & GAS CORPEnergy$5.04B
2.02%
14CNX
CNX RESOURCES CORPEnergy$4.71B
1.88%
15BSM
BLACK STONE MINERALS LPEnergy$3.25B
1.30%
16GPOR
GULFPORT ENERGY CORPEnergy$2.75B
1.10%
17TALO
TALOS ENERGY INCEnergy$2.49B
1.00%
18LPG
DORIAN LPG LTDEnergy$1.76B
0.70%
19KRP
KIMBELL ROYALTY PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.61B
0.65%
20PBT
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTEnergy$1.32B
0.53%
21DMLP
DORCHESTER MINERALS LPEnergy$1.31B
0.53%
22HPK
HIGHPEAK ENERGY INCEnergy$931M
0.37%
23INR
INFINITY NATURAL RESOURCES INCEnergy$826M
0.33%
24REPX
RILEY EXPLORATION PERMIAN INCEnergy$759M
0.30%
25SD
SANDRIDGE ENERGY INCEnergy$503M
0.20%
26EPSN
EPSILON ENERGY LTDEnergy$167M
0.07%

Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $250.00B. 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

26 classified
Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
12%1
10%2
64%8
7%4
3%2
·
2%5
1%1
2%3

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 — 91% toward Large, 72% toward Growth. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.

Tilt over time
Size tilt91% → Large
SmallLarge
Value ↔ growth tilt72% → Growth
ValueGrowth

Capital-weighted centroid of the long leg, December 1998July 2026; the right-hand end is the same value as the box’s dot. 26 names now. The faded start covers early months with a much thinner universe. 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
4
Failed
2
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
    62.8%
    Margin
    -12.2%
  • Days required to liquidate the largest position at 20% of one day's dollar volume.

    Required
    <= 7.0 days
    Actual
    unbounded
    Margin
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.

No verdict sits within 1.0pp of its limit.

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

Measured on the 2026-07 formation date across 26 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
2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.3)
x reference VaR
Limit
2.00x
<= 2.00x reference VaR
Fund VaR
19.1%
99% / 20d
Reference
9.6%
FF5 market (mkt)

historical method · 331 monthly observations · about 3.3 in the 99% tail · paired percentile bootstrap over months

Same test, three estimators
historical
1.98x
within
parametric
2.02x
over
cornish fisher
2.46x
over

The estimators disagree about the verdict, not just the value — the choice of method decides the answer here. Historical VaR gives ratio 1.98 (pass) but Gaussian VaR gives 2.02 (fail). The pass/fail conclusion is an artefact of estimator choice, not a property of the strategy.

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?

Publication date unknown. We don’t have a source year for this signal, so we can’t split its record into before and since publication. That’s a gap in our reference data — not a statement about how the factor performed.

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
50%
13 of 26 3-year windows made money
Worst window
-0.89
Sharpe, January 2012 – December 2014
January 1999July 2026
Median Sharpe
-0.01
Dispersion
0.62
Best window
1.42

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 January 1999
Trailing
PeriodLong legLong-short
1 yearcum.19.3%-29.1%
3 yearsp.a.9.5%-10.5%
5 yearsp.a.17.6%-7.5%
10 yearsp.a.4.6%-5.5%
Since inceptionp.a.9.0%-0.8%
Calendar years
YearLong legLong-short
20267 mo20.5%-22.3%
2025-7.3%-20.5%
202417.0%19.2%
20235.6%-7.5%
202238.5%-7.9%
202192.0%39.3%
2020-42.3%-8.0%
20192.3%-14.2%
2018-29.0%-8.9%
2017-5.6%-3.2%
201625.9%8.9%
2015-29.9%-18.9%
2014-13.8%-14.3%
201325.4%-11.2%
2012-0.1%-12.7%
20110.5%-5.1%
201028.8%-6.1%
200950.8%20.1%
2008-39.4%20.0%
200734.8%6.7%
2006-4.9%-23.8%
200552.8%8.4%
200437.1%5.0%
200335.2%-0.6%
2002-0.4%28.5%
2001-14.5%7.1%
200085.5%43.7%
199915.0%-3.8%

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)FGRE
IssuerETF Foundry Research (hypothetical)
SeriesHypothetical Model Portfolio Series (not a registered trust)
Expense ratio0.45% (placeholder)
Inception2019-12-08 (placeholder)
Listing exchangeNot listed (hypothetical)
CUSIPNot applicable (hypothetical model portfolio)
RebalanceMonthly
Holdings as ofJuly 2026
Total mkt cap (long leg)$250.00B

Methodology

The Foundry Energy Gross Margin Factor ETF tracks a rules-based model that ranks Energy common stocks each month by a Gross Margin 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.