Loading the page
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.
Gross of the placeholder expense ratio and trading costs · not investor results
Every constituent of the long leg — sort, search or filter by sector
| Ticker | Company | Sector | Market cap | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1MBLY | MOBILEYE GLOBAL INC | Consumer Cyclical | $4.79B | 60.44% |
2TRIP | TRIPADVISOR INC | Consumer Cyclical | $855M | 10.77% |
3AEVA | AEVA TECHNOLOGIES INC | Consumer Cyclical | $825M | 10.40% |
4CARS | CARSCOM INC | Consumer Cyclical | $669M | 8.43% |
5CHPT | CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS INC | Consumer Cyclical | $324M | 4.08% |
6DIBS | 1STDIBSCOM INC | Consumer Cyclical | $199M | 2.50% |
7SRI | STONERIDGE INC | Consumer Cyclical | $145M | 1.83% |
8WW | WW INTERNATIONAL INC | Consumer Cyclical | $123M | 1.55% |
Full long-leg book as of November 2026 · cap-weighted · total market cap $7.93B. Hypothetical model holdings — not a registered fund’s portfolio.
Size × value map of the long-leg book
Share of long-leg capital by market cap × book-to-market, using terciles of the 302-name universe at November 2026. Rows: Large ≥ $5.8B, Small < $1.3B. Columns: Value ≥ 0.64, Growth < 0.36 B/M. The dot marks the capital-weighted centroid of the book — 36% toward Large, 55% toward Growth. +16% unclassified (3 missing size/value). Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not realized P&L.
Capital-weighted centroid of the long leg, December 1998 → November 2026; the right-hand end is the same value as the box’s dot. 8 names now. Hypothetical holdings — descriptive, not P&L.
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.
No more than 25% of total assets may be invested in the securities of any one issuer.
Days required to liquidate the largest position at 20% of one day's dollar volume.
No more than 15% of net assets may be held in illiquid investments.
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.
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=20261113T032607 rows=2198308 asof=202611 issuers=20261113T063725 rates=20261113T063725
Measured on the 2026-11 formation date across 8 holdings (cap-weighted). A different formation date can produce different verdicts.
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 · 326 monthly observations · about 3.3 in the 99% tail · paired percentile bootstrap over months
The estimators disagree about the verdict, not just the value — the choice of method decides the answer here. Historical VaR gives ratio 1.75 (pass) but Gaussian VaR gives 2.28 (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 →Did the edge survive the paper coming out?
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.
Is this record broadly durable, or one regime?
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.
Long leg is what this fund holds — long-short is shown for reference
| Period | Long leg | Long-short |
|---|---|---|
| 1 yearcum. | -41.6% | -44.0% |
| 3 yearsp.a. | -20.4% | -41.4% |
| 5 yearsp.a. | -14.0% | -27.9% |
| 10 yearsp.a. | 1.3% | -33.2% |
| Since inceptionp.a. | 7.3% | -11.4% |
| Year | Long leg | Long-short |
|---|---|---|
| 202611 mo | -34.3% | -33.7% |
| 2025 | -20.2% | -40.0% |
| 2024 | -26.7% | -60.4% |
| 2023 | 82.0% | -17.3% |
| 2022 | -27.0% | 49.7% |
| 2021 | 40.8% | -19.1% |
| 2020 | 42.7% | -87.9% |
| 2019 | -5.5% | -27.0% |
| 2018 | -15.2% | -15.5% |
| 2017 | 41.1% | 48.5% |
| 2016 | 34.9% | 36.1% |
| 2015 | -10.1% | 0.7% |
| 2014 | 28.7% | 19.4% |
| 2013 | 78.3% | 23.6% |
| 2012 | 47.9% | 23.9% |
| 2011 | 4.0% | 7.5% |
| 2010 | 57.3% | -38.5% |
| 200910 mo | 67.1% | 40.0% |
| 2008 | -59.2% | 173.7% |
| 2007 | -8.3% | -29.7% |
| 2006 | 18.1% | -47.5% |
| 2005 | -0.3% | 65.7% |
| 2004 | 31.9% | -29.7% |
| 20039 mo | 65.0% | 9.2% |
| 200210 mo | -18.1% | -2.2% |
| 200110 mo | 21.9% | -19.1% |
| 2000 | -32.4% | 134.6% |
| 1999 | -19.0% | -61.0% |
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 November 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.
The Foundry Consumer Cyclical RD Factor ETF tracks a rules-based model that ranks Consumer Cyclical common stocks each month by a RD 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.
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.