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 NetEqFin Factor ETF

ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly

FNEEHYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Since ’99
−13%
Expense Ratio
0.45%
placeholder
Holdings
26
cap-weighted
Inception
Feb 2020
placeholder
Full Sharpe
0.08
Ann. Return (LS)
1.8%
Ann. Volatility
21.0%
Max Drawdown
-52.7%
Test Sharpe ’19–26
0.06
Test FF5 α (ann.)
2.5%
vs Fama-French 5
Test FF5 α t-stat
0.32
not significant
Monthly turnover
8%
of the long leg, per rebalance
Cumulative return (LS)
-13%
over 331 months
This fund holds the long leg only
Long leg Sharpe
0.46
what this fund holds
Long leg ann. return
10.4%
buyable, long-only
Long-short Sharpe
0.08
requires shorting
Bottom bucket ann. return
8.6%
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
1XOM
EXXON MOBIL CORPEnergy$610.80B
37.00%
2CVX
CHEVRON CORPEnergy$373.19B
22.61%
3COP
CONOCOPHILLIPSEnergy$139.75B
8.47%
4VLO
VALERO ENERGY CORPEnergy$91.95B
5.57%
5EPD
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS LPEnergy$82.65B
5.01%
6EOG
EOG RESOURCES INCEnergy$74.51B
4.51%
7MPLX
MPLX LPEnergy$57.90B
3.51%
8LNG
CHENIERE ENERGY INCEnergy$55.03B
3.33%
9CQP
CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS LPEnergy$30.20B
1.83%
10FTI
TECHNIPFMC PLCEnergy$28.73B
1.74%
11TPL
TEXAS PACIFIC LAND CORPEnergy$28.67B
1.74%
12WES
WESTERN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS LPEnergy$18.10B
1.10%
13AM
ANTERO MIDSTREAM CORPEnergy$10.73B
0.65%
14HESM
HESS MIDSTREAM LPEnergy$8.32B
0.50%
15KNTK
KINETIK HOLDINGS INCEnergy$8.16B
0.49%
16MGY
MAGNOLIA OIL & GAS CORPEnergy$5.04B
0.31%
17CRC
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CORPEnergy$4.69B
0.28%
18INSW
INTERNATIONAL SEAWAYS INCEnergy$4.29B
0.26%
19USAC
USA COMPRESSION PARTNERS LPEnergy$3.78B
0.23%
20BSM
BLACK STONE MINERALS LPEnergy$3.25B
0.20%
21DKL
DELEK LOGISTICS PARTNERS LPEnergy$2.92B
0.18%
22GPOR
GULFPORT ENERGY CORPEnergy$2.75B
0.17%
23MNR
MACH NATURAL RESOURCES LPEnergy$2.21B
0.13%
24KRP
KIMBELL ROYALTY PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.61B
0.10%
25CAPL
CROSSAMERICA PARTNERS LPEnergy$856M
0.05%
26VTS
VITESSE ENERGY INCEnergy$664M
0.04%

Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $1.65T. 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
·
64%6
34%9
<1%2
1%5
<1%1
<1%1
<1%1
<1%1

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 — 99% toward Large, 67% toward Growth. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.

Tilt over time
Size tilt99% → Large
SmallLarge
Value ↔ growth tilt67% → 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
3
Failed
3
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
    46.3%
    Margin
    -28.7%
  • No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

    Required
    <= 25.0%
    Actual
    37.0%
    Margin
    -12.0%
  • 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
  • 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
    46.3%
    Margin
    -3.7%

    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 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
1.5 (95% CI 1.1-1.8)
x reference VaR
Limit
2.00x
<= 2.00x reference VaR
Fund VaR
14.1%
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
1.47x
within
parametric
1.44x
within
cornish fisher
2.25x
over · unreliable

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 2006
Before publication (pre-2006)
-0.13
Sharpe · -3.1% p.a.
January 1999December 2006 · 96 mo
Since publication
0.19
Sharpe · 3.8% p.a.
January 2007July 2026 · 235 mo
Change in Sharpe+0.32the return flipped from negative to positive 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
65%
17 of 26 3-year windows made money
Worst window
-1.25
Sharpe, January 2003 – December 2005
January 1999July 2026
Median Sharpe
0.18
Dispersion
0.53
Best window
1.17

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.36.7%2.5%
3 yearsp.a.14.6%6.8%
5 yearsp.a.17.0%1.6%
10 yearsp.a.7.6%2.5%
Since inceptionp.a.8.1%-0.5%
Calendar years
YearLong legLong-short
20267 mo30.2%-2.9%
202510.2%13.1%
20246.6%-5.8%
20231.7%11.9%
202236.8%-5.1%
202131.9%-13.6%
2020-33.0%-14.0%
20197.5%9.5%
2018-12.6%23.3%
20173.7%9.6%
201626.6%-3.6%
2015-12.3%14.3%
2014-6.8%0.9%
201325.8%-1.6%
20124.5%-4.7%
20119.6%5.1%
201020.7%-1.5%
20095.5%-34.2%
2008-31.2%31.0%
200733.0%25.5%
200624.1%10.7%
200523.7%-20.0%
200428.3%-13.5%
200324.6%-8.1%
2002-9.9%40.3%
2001-3.6%23.8%
200011.1%-44.1%
199912.9%-9.5%

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

Ticker (pseudo)FNEE
IssuerETF Foundry Research (hypothetical)
SeriesHypothetical Model Portfolio Series (not a registered trust)
Expense ratio0.45% (placeholder)
Inception2020-02-24 (placeholder)
Listing exchangeNot listed (hypothetical)
CUSIPNot applicable (hypothetical model portfolio)
RebalanceMonthly
Holdings as ofJuly 2026
Total mkt cap (long leg)$1.65T

Methodology

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