Foundry Energy Long-Term Reversal Factor ETF
ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly
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
Holdings
Every constituent of the long leg — sort, search or filter by sector
| Ticker | Company | Sector | Market cap | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1HAL | HALLIBURTON CO | Energy | $29.42B | 33.50% |
2APA | APA CORP | Energy | $12.45B | 14.17% |
3NOV | NOV INC | Energy | $7.01B | 7.98% |
4RIG | TRANSOCEAN LTD | Energy | $5.74B | 6.53% |
5MUR | MURPHY OIL CORP | Energy | $5.28B | 6.01% |
6IEP | ICAHN ENTERPRISES LP | Energy | $5.03B | 5.73% |
7PTEN | PATTERSON UTI ENERGY INC | Energy | $3.80B | 4.33% |
8HP | HELMERICH & PAYNE INC | Energy | $3.41B | 3.88% |
9TALO | TALOS ENERGY INC | Energy | $2.49B | 2.84% |
10WKC | WORLD KINECT CORP | Energy | $1.87B | 2.13% |
11XPRO | EXPRO GROUP HOLDINGS NV | Energy | $1.87B | 2.13% |
12INVX | INNOVEX INTERNATIONAL INC | Energy | $1.77B | 2.02% |
13PUMP | PROPETRO HOLDING CORP | Energy | $1.59B | 1.81% |
14TTI | TETRA TECHNOLOGIES INC | Energy | $1.25B | 1.43% |
15NBR | NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD | Energy | $1.24B | 1.41% |
16HPK | HIGHPEAK ENERGY INC | Energy | $931M | 1.06% |
17FET | FORUM ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES INC | Energy | $593M | 0.67% |
18CLB | CORE LABORATORIES INC | Energy | $523M | 0.60% |
19OIS | OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL INC | Energy | $507M | 0.58% |
20SMC | SUMMIT MIDSTREAM CORP | Energy | $407M | 0.46% |
21GTE | GRAN TIERRA ENERGY INC | Energy | $233M | 0.27% |
22PED | PEDEVCO CORP | Energy | $161M | 0.18% |
23BOOM | DMC GLOBAL INC | Energy | $128M | 0.15% |
24NCSM | NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS INC | Energy | $114M | 0.13% |
Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $87.84B. Hypothetical model holdings — not a registered fund’s portfolio.
Sector Breakdown
Portfolio Style
Size × value map of the long-leg book
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 — 68% toward Large, 39% toward Growth. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.
Capital-weighted centroid of the long leg, December 2002 → July 2026; the right-hand end is the same value as the box’s dot. 24 names now. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not P&L.
Constraint checks
How this book measures against the concentration and liquidity rules — as implemented here
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.
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%Actual56.1%Margin-18.9%No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.
Required<= 25.0%Actual33.5%Margin-8.5%
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 24 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.
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.
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.
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 governThis 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.
historical method · 283 monthly observations · about 2.8 in the 99% tail · paired percentile bootstrap over months
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?
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?
3-year rolling windows, stepping 1 year (22 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
| Period | Long leg | Long-short |
|---|---|---|
| 1 yearcum. | 34.6% | -3.9% |
| 3 yearsp.a. | 9.6% | -7.6% |
| 5 yearsp.a. | 23.9% | 2.5% |
| 10 yearsp.a. | 5.8% | -3.9% |
| Since inceptionp.a. | 8.8% | -0.5% |
| Year | Long leg | Long-short |
|---|---|---|
| 20267 mo | 25.2% | -10.2% |
| 2025 | 13.8% | 8.7% |
| 2024 | -0.7% | -9.6% |
| 2023 | 3.7% | -3.4% |
| 2022 | 62.2% | 18.9% |
| 2021 | 113.8% | 54.1% |
| 2020 | -27.2% | 11.7% |
| 2019 | -20.9% | -32.8% |
| 2018 | -38.9% | -24.7% |
| 2017 | -21.5% | -27.6% |
| 2016 | 34.9% | 13.9% |
| 2015 | -38.6% | -17.5% |
| 2014 | -29.8% | -24.8% |
| 2013 | 30.7% | 2.2% |
| 2012 | 26.9% | 36.6% |
| 2011 | -7.6% | -12.0% |
| 2010 | 38.9% | 22.4% |
| 2009 | 53.3% | -8.6% |
| 2008 | -38.5% | 36.9% |
| 2007 | 25.9% | -2.4% |
| 2006 | 26.2% | 27.6% |
| 2005 | 54.9% | -17.6% |
| 2004 | 29.3% | -10.5% |
| 2003 | 41.0% | 14.5% |
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
Methodology
The Foundry Energy Long-Term Reversal Factor ETF tracks a rules-based model that ranks Energy common stocks each month by a Long-Term Reversal 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.
Objective, fees, strategy, and key risks.
Full strategy, model methodology, and risks.
Policies, construction, and governance.
One-page snapshot with top holdings.
Full current constituent list.
DRAFT — HYPOTHETICAL MODEL PORTFOLIO — NOT A REGISTERED FUND, NOT AN OFFER TO SELL SECURITIES, NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.