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

Foundry Energy VolSD Factor ETF

ETF Foundry Research (hypothetical) · rebalanced monthly

FVOEHYPOTHETICAL MODEL
Since ’99
+72%
Expense Ratio
0.45%
placeholder
Holdings
27
cap-weighted
Inception
May 2020
placeholder
Full Sharpe
0.21
Ann. Return (LS)
3.1%
Ann. Volatility
15.1%
Max Drawdown
-46.2%
Test Sharpe ’19–26
-0.03
Test FF5 α (ann.)
-0.0%
vs Fama-French 5
Test FF5 α t-stat
-0.01
not significant
Monthly turnover
10%
of the long leg, per rebalance
Cumulative return (LS)
72%
over 331 months
This fund holds the long leg only
Long leg Sharpe
0.60
what this fund holds
Long leg ann. return
14.1%
buyable, long-only
Long-short Sharpe
0.21
requires shorting
Bottom bucket ann. return
11.0%
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

27 of 27 · 100.0% of book
TickerCompanySectorMarket capWeight
1CQP
CHENIERE ENERGY PARTNERS LPEnergy$30.20B
49.86%
2IEP
ICAHN ENTERPRISES LPEnergy$5.03B
8.31%
3USAC
USA COMPRESSION PARTNERS LPEnergy$3.78B
6.25%
4BSM
BLACK STONE MINERALS LPEnergy$3.25B
5.37%
5DKL
DELEK LOGISTICS PARTNERS LPEnergy$2.92B
4.82%
6MNR
MACH NATURAL RESOURCES LPEnergy$2.21B
3.65%
7GLP
GLOBAL PARTNERS LPEnergy$1.63B
2.68%
8PBT
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTEnergy$1.32B
2.19%
9DMLP
DORCHESTER MINERALS LPEnergy$1.31B
2.17%
10APC
ARKO PETROLEUM CORPEnergy$989M
1.63%
11FTK
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES INCEnergy$947M
1.56%
12HPK
HIGHPEAK ENERGY INCEnergy$931M
1.54%
13CAPL
CROSSAMERICA PARTNERS LPEnergy$856M
1.41%
14INR
INFINITY NATURAL RESOURCES INCEnergy$826M
1.36%
15TXO
TXO PARTNERS LPEnergy$707M
1.17%
16EGY
VAALCO ENERGY INCEnergy$553M
0.91%
17SD
SANDRIDGE ENERGY INCEnergy$503M
0.83%
18NGS
NATURAL GAS SERVICES GROUP INCEnergy$488M
0.81%
19SGU
STAR GROUP LPEnergy$430M
0.71%
20SMC
SUMMIT MIDSTREAM CORPEnergy$407M
0.67%
21RNGR
RANGER ENERGY SERVICES INCEnergy$371M
0.61%
22GTE
GRAN TIERRA ENERGY INCEnergy$233M
0.38%
23EPSN
EPSILON ENERGY LTDEnergy$167M
0.28%
24PED
PEDEVCO CORPEnergy$161M
0.27%
25BOOM
DMC GLOBAL INCEnergy$128M
0.21%
26NCSM
NCS MULTISTAGE HOLDINGS INCEnergy$114M
0.19%
27GEOS
GEOSPACE TECHNOLOGIES CORPEnergy$88M
0.15%

Full long-leg book as of July 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $60.55B. 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

27 classified
Value
Blend
Growth
Large
Mid
Small
·
·
50%1
·
14%3
15%2
5%9
10%8
7%4

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 — 64% toward Large, 83% toward Growth. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.

Tilt over time
Size tilt64% → Large
SmallLarge
Value ↔ growth tilt83% → 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. 27 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
2
Failed
4
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
    50.2%
    Margin
    -24.8%
  • No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.

    Required
    <= 25.0%
    Actual
    49.9%
    Margin
    -24.9%
  • Days required to liquidate the largest position at 20% of one day's dollar volume.

    Required
    <= 7.0 days
    Actual
    99.9 days
    Margin
    -92.9 days
  • No more than 15% of net assets may be held in illiquid investments.

    Required
    <= 15.0%
    Actual
    76.7%
    Margin
    -61.7%
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
    50.2%
    Margin
    0.2%

    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.

    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.

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 27 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 1.1-1.9)
x reference VaR
Limit
2.00x
<= 2.00x reference VaR
Fund VaR
14.8%
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
1.54x
within
parametric
1.49x
within
cornish fisher
2.38x
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 2001
Before publication (pre-2001)
0.31
Sharpe · 5.5% p.a.
January 1999December 2001 · 36 mo
Since publication
0.19
Sharpe · 2.8% p.a.
January 2002July 2026 · 295 mo
Change in Sharpe−0.12Sharpe weakened since publication48% of the prior annual return given up

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
69%
18 of 26 3-year windows made money
Worst window
-0.92
Sharpe, January 2017 – December 2019
January 1999July 2026
Median Sharpe
0.22
Dispersion
0.65
Best window
1.74

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.25.3%-9.0%
3 yearsp.a.10.6%-2.8%
5 yearsp.a.17.2%-4.9%
10 yearsp.a.6.0%-3.4%
Since inceptionp.a.11.8%2.0%
Calendar years
YearLong legLong-short
20267 mo27.4%-3.9%
2025-12.1%-18.0%
202415.9%9.1%
20236.3%7.6%
202246.1%-13.3%
202151.5%-1.7%
2020-19.9%27.0%
20191.1%-10.0%
2018-29.8%-15.9%
2017-15.8%-15.1%
201640.1%12.2%
2015-24.2%-2.0%
2014-2.9%3.4%
201334.8%7.5%
2012-1.2%-6.0%
20114.4%-1.2%
201048.2%24.4%
200966.0%41.3%
2008-40.4%-11.4%
20073.9%-25.4%
200631.0%4.4%
200532.3%-2.3%
200452.6%15.2%
200363.4%30.0%
20022.5%18.1%
200116.0%29.2%
200035.0%8.0%
1999-2.5%-19.3%

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)FVOE
IssuerETF Foundry Research (hypothetical)
SeriesHypothetical Model Portfolio Series (not a registered trust)
Expense ratio0.45% (placeholder)
Inception2020-05-16 (placeholder)
Listing exchangeNot listed (hypothetical)
CUSIPNot applicable (hypothetical model portfolio)
RebalanceMonthly
Holdings as ofJuly 2026
Total mkt cap (long leg)$60.55B

Methodology

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