• Financials38.00%
• Consumer Staples10.59%
• Information Technology10.38%
• Consumer Discretionary10.16%
• Real Estate9.60%
• Materials7.79%
• Utilities7.58%
• Health Care5.91%

• FCNC.AFirst Citizens BancShares, Inc.12.78% (+8.74)
• DLTRDollar Tree, Inc.10.59% (+7.24)
• TCBITexas Capital Bancshares, Inc.10.45% (+7.15)
• AXSAXIS Capital Holdings Limited8.89% (+6.08)
• CCKCrown Holdings, Inc.7.79% (+5.33)
• EVRGEvergy, Inc.7.58% (+5.18)
• TRMBTrimble Inc.6.98% (+4.77)
• TFXTeleflex Incorporated5.91% (+4.05)
• LPLALPL Financial Holdings Inc.5.88% (+4.02)
• VFCV.F. Corporation4.89% (+3.34)
• VICIVICI Properties Inc.4.82% (+3.29)
• SUISun Communities, Inc.4.78% (+3.27)
• AMDAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc.3.40% (+2.33)
• PVHPVH Corp.3.36% (+2.30)
• BBYBest Buy Co., Inc.1.91% (+1.31)

vs Baseline: Annualized +3.27 · Alpha -3.43 · Sharpe -0.21

• value13FChat AI

  Which names did the value screen keep, and what makes the result different from the baseline?

  The value screen kept a concentrated set centered on FCNC.A, DLTR, TCBI, AXS, CCK, EVRG, TRMB, TFX, LPLA, and VFC, with additional real-estate exposure through VICI and SUI. The biggest difference from the baseline is how aggressively it resized them: FCNC.A was lifted to 12.78% from 4.04%, DLTR to 10.59% from 3.34%, TCBI to 10.45% from 3.30%, and AXS to 8.89% from 2.81%. It also pushed top10 concentration to 81.74% versus 29.95% in baseline and shifted sector weights toward Financials at 38.00%, ahead of Consumer Staples at 10.59%, Information Technology at 10.38%, Consumer Discretionary at 10.16%, and Real Estate at 9.60%. So the value result is not just a cheaper version of baseline holdings—it is a much more concentrated reweighting toward selected financial, utility, materials, and consumer names.

  strategyViews.basic-value-screen.topHoldingsstrategyViews.basic-value-screen.latestChangesstrategyViews.basic-value-screen.concentration.top10strategyViews.baseline.concentration.top10strategyViews.basic-value-screen.sectorWeights

  ↳ Compare the value screen’s kept names with the baseline by valuation ratios and sector exposure so I can see exactly what the screen emphasized.

• value13FChat AI

  Did the value screen improve valuation exposure without hurting return quality?

  It likely improved explicit value exposure by construction, but it did hurt return quality on a risk-adjusted basis. Absolute return improved from 6.27% baseline annualizedReturn to 9.54%, and totalReturn rose from 79.42 to 139.96. But alpha fell to -2.69 from +0.74, beta jumped to 1.02 from 0.41, Sharpe dropped to 0.52 from 0.73, Sortino fell to 0.64 from 0.90, and maxDrawdown worsened to -52.73% from -19.46%. The screen therefore improved raw return and likely valuation focus, but the trade-off was clearly lower return quality, deeper drawdowns, and much more benchmark-sensitive behavior.

  strategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.annualizedReturnstrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.totalReturnstrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.alphastrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.betastrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.sharpestrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.sortinostrategyViews.basic-value-screen.metrics.maxDrawdownstrategyViews.baseline.metrics.annualizedReturnstrategyViews.baseline.metrics.totalReturnstrategyViews.baseline.metrics.alphastrategyViews.baseline.metrics.betastrategyViews.baseline.metrics.sharpestrategyViews.baseline.metrics.sortinostrategyViews.baseline.metrics.maxDrawdown

  ↳ Show me whether the value screen’s extra return came from a few rebound periods or from consistent stock selection across the full sample.

• value13FChat AI

  Which periods or holdings most clearly explain the value screen's result?

  The value screen’s result is best explained by its concentration and a few very strong or very weak periods. On holdings, FCNC.A at 12.78%, DLTR at 10.59%, TCBI at 10.45%, AXS at 8.89%, and CCK at 7.79% alone made up 50.50% of the portfolio, so stock selection mattered more than in the baseline. On periods, 2023-06-30 is the clearest positive example: the screen returned 11.16% while SPY lost -1.77%, a +12.93% excess return. But it also had damaging misses such as 2022-12-31 at -4.09% versus -0.25% benchmark and 2024-06-30 at 4.00% versus 9.83%, a -5.83% excess. Turnover stayed elevated in many quarters—49.85 in 2022-12-31, 49.36 in 2023-03-31, and 45.35 in 2023-12-31—so timing and rebalance concentration both played a major role.

  strategyViews.basic-value-screen.concentration.top5strategyViews.basic-value-screen.topHoldingsstrategyViews.basic-value-screen.periodPerformancestrategyViews.basic-value-screen.turnoverSeries

  ↳ Decompose the value screen’s best and worst periods into holding-level contribution so I can see which cheap names helped and which turned into value traps.