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

Foundry Energy Investment Discipline Factor ETF

ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly

FINEHYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Since ’99
−54%
Expense Ratio
0.45%
placeholder
Holdings
25
cap-weighted
Inception
Dec 2020
placeholder
Full Sharpe
-0.11
Ann. Return (LS)
-1.7%
Ann. Volatility
14.8%
Max Drawdown
-68.0%
Test Sharpe ’19–26
-0.41
Test FF5 α (ann.)
-8.0%
vs Fama-French 5
Test FF5 α t-stat
-1.39
not significant
Monthly turnover
16%
of the long leg, per rebalance
Cumulative return (LS)
-54%
over 331 months
This fund holds the long leg only
Long leg Sharpe
0.36
what this fund holds
Long leg ann. return
10.5%
buyable, long-only
Long-short Sharpe
-0.11
requires shorting
Bottom bucket ann. return
12.2%
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

25 of 25 · 100.0% of book
TickerCompanySectorMarket capWeight
1FANG
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY INCEnergy$55.01B
41.68%
2DVN
DEVON ENERGY CORPEnergy$27.24B
20.64%
3SM
SM ENERGY COEnergy$7.51B
5.69%
4WFRD
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PLCEnergy$5.80B
4.40%
5RIG
TRANSOCEAN LTDEnergy$5.74B
4.35%
6INSW
INTERNATIONAL SEAWAYS INCEnergy$4.29B
3.25%
7CLMT
CALUMET INCEnergy$3.73B
2.83%
8CRGY
CRESCENT ENERGY COEnergy$3.55B
2.69%
9HP
HELMERICH & PAYNE INCEnergy$3.41B
2.58%
10NGL
NGL ENERGY PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.89B
1.43%
11GEL
GENESIS ENERGY LPEnergy$1.79B
1.36%
12AESI
ATLAS ENERGY SOLUTIONS INCEnergy$1.76B
1.33%
13GLP
GLOBAL PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.63B
1.23%
14KRP
KIMBELL ROYALTY PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.61B
1.22%
15HLX
HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP INCEnergy$1.41B
1.07%
16DMLP
DORCHESTER MINERALS LPEnergy$1.31B
1.00%
17VTOL
BRISTOW GROUP INCEnergy$1.31B
0.99%
18REPX
RILEY EXPLORATION PERMIAN INCEnergy$759M
0.58%
19FET
FORUM ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES INCEnergy$593M
0.45%
20OIS
OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL INCEnergy$507M
0.38%
21SMC
SUMMIT MIDSTREAM CORPEnergy$407M
0.31%
22PNRG
PRIMEENERGY RESOURCES CORPEnergy$302M
0.23%
23EPSN
EPSILON ENERGY LTDEnergy$167M
0.13%
24BOOM
DMC GLOBAL INCEnergy$128M
0.10%
25NCSM
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS INCEnergy$114M
0.09%

Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $131.98B. 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
21%1
6%1
42%1
13%4
4%1
·
3%8
5%4
3%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 — 80% toward Large, 54% toward Growth. +4% unclassified (2 missing size/value). Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.

Tilt over time
Size tilt80% → Large
SmallLarge
Value ↔ growth tilt54% → 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. 25 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
    47.0%
    Margin
    -28.0%
  • No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

    Required
    <= 25.0%
    Actual
    41.7%
    Margin
    -16.7%
Reported separately — arithmetically implied
  • At least 50% of total assets must sit in cash, government securities, other RICs, and other securities limited to 5% of assets and 10% of the issuer's voting securities per issuer.

    Required
    >= 50.0%
    Actual
    47.0%
    Margin
    -3.0%

    Arithmetically entailed by '40 Act 5(b)(1) diversification (75%/5% asset leg) — it cannot fail independently, so it is reported outside the tally rather than counted as a separate check.

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 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
2.1 (95% CI 1.4-2.4)
x reference VaR
Limit
2.00x
<= 2.00x reference VaR
Fund VaR
20.1%
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
2.09x
over
parametric
1.91x
within
cornish fisher
2.36x
over

The estimators disagree about the verdict, not just the value — the choice of method decides the answer here. Historical VaR gives ratio 2.09 (fail) but Gaussian VaR gives 1.91 (pass). 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?

published 2012
Before publication (pre-2012)
-0.06
Sharpe · -1.0% p.a.
January 1999December 2012 · 168 mo
Since publication
-0.17
Sharpe · -2.4% p.a.
January 2013July 2026 · 163 mo
Change in Sharpe−0.10Sharpe weakened since publication

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
27%
7 of 26 3-year windows made money
Worst window
-1.19
Sharpe, January 2006 – December 2008
January 1999July 2026
Median Sharpe
-0.16
Dispersion
0.50
Best window
0.73

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.29.1%-0.4%
3 yearsp.a.11.6%-2.8%
5 yearsp.a.15.4%-5.6%
10 yearsp.a.6.2%-5.1%
Since inceptionp.a.6.2%-2.7%
Calendar years
YearLong legLong-short
20267 mo26.1%-1.7%
20255.4%11.9%
20243.8%-17.7%
202313.4%2.8%
202230.2%-12.3%
202138.0%3.6%
2020-30.4%2.3%
2019-1.2%-34.3%
2018-15.0%7.9%
2017-8.9%-14.9%
201646.6%28.0%
2015-26.4%-0.3%
2014-12.3%5.7%
201323.6%-10.8%
20129.0%15.9%
2011-10.8%-6.4%
201026.2%5.9%
200971.5%17.0%
2008-59.6%-26.0%
200725.6%-2.8%
2006-5.2%-11.6%
200541.8%0.2%
200435.5%-10.0%
200317.2%-9.5%
2002-16.3%1.0%
2001-19.9%-8.8%
200042.9%-0.8%
199939.1%16.4%

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)FINE
IssuerETF Foundry Research (hypothetical)
SeriesHypothetical Model Portfolio Series (not a registered trust)
Expense ratio0.45% (placeholder)
Inception2020-12-22 (placeholder)
Listing exchangeNot listed (hypothetical)
CUSIPNot applicable (hypothetical model portfolio)
RebalanceMonthly
Holdings as ofJuly 2026
Total mkt cap (long leg)$131.98B

Methodology

The Foundry Energy Investment Discipline Factor ETF tracks a rules-based model that ranks Energy common stocks each month by a Investment Discipline signal and holds the top quintile with the lowest 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.