• Industrials28.58%
• Communication Services28.58%
• Consumer Discretionary14.29%
• Information Technology14.29%
• Financials14.29%

• AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.14.29% (-1.40)
• MSFTMicrosoft Corporation14.29% (+4.53)
• UBERUber Technologies, Inc.14.29% (+11.76)
• RNRRenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.14.29% (+12.70)
• GOOGLAlphabet Inc.14.29% (+14.05)
• CRSCarpenter Technology Corporation14.29% (+8.65)
• NYTThe New York Times Company14.29% (+13.16)

vs Baseline: Annualized +0.14 · Alpha -0.70 · Sharpe -0.14

• combo13FChat AI

  How did the combo equal-weight screen change portfolio structure versus the baseline?

  The combo equal-weight screen materially reduced single-name dominance versus the baseline’s very top-heavy structure, but it still stayed concentrated. In the combo screen, the top 5 holdings are 71.45% and the top 10 are effectively 100.03%, while the top names are all equal at 14.29%: Amazon, Microsoft, Uber, RenaissanceRe, Alphabet, Carpenter Technology, and New York Times. By contrast, the baseline had Amazon at 15.68%, Visa at 13.23%, and Microsoft at 9.76%, with top 5 concentration of 50.38% and top 10 of 75.20%. Sector structure also changed: the combo screen shifted to 28.58% Industrials, 28.58% Communication Services, 14.29% Consumer Discretionary, 14.29% Information Technology, and 14.29% Financials. So the combo screen redistributed weight away from baseline leaders like Visa and Boston Scientific and toward a broader set of equal-weighted quality/value/size picks.

  strategyViews.combo-equal-screen.topHoldingsstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.concentrationstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.sectorWeightsstrategyViews.baseline.topHoldingsstrategyViews.baseline.concentration

  ↳ Compare the combo and baseline holdings tables to see which dominant baseline names lost weight and which smaller names gained equal-weight influence.

• combo13FChat AI

  Was the combo screen's result driven more by stock selection or by weight redistribution?

  The result looks driven more by stock selection than by simple weight redistribution. The combo screen did equal-weight the selected names at 14.29% each, but the bigger change was which names entered the portfolio: Uber moved from 2.52% to 14.29%, RenaissanceRe from 1.59% to 14.29%, Alphabet from 0.24% to 14.29%, Carpenter Technology from 5.63% to 14.29%, and New York Times from 1.13% to 14.29%. Those are large active bets relative to the baseline. Performance periods also support a selection story: the combo lagged in 2024-06-30 by -5.95 points and 2024-09-30 by -5.59 points versus benchmark, which would be hard to explain by equal-weighting alone; the specific chosen names likely mattered more than the weight rule itself.

  strategyViews.combo-equal-screen.topHoldingsstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.latestChangesstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.periodPerformance

  ↳ Inspect the combo screen’s active weight changes and quarterly results together to separate the effect of new names from the effect of equal weighting.

• combo13FChat AI

  What trade-off should a user understand before choosing the combo equal-weight screen?

  The key trade-off is that the combo screen kept long-run return roughly in line with the baseline while making the ride much rougher. Annualized return was 15.72% versus the baseline’s 15.58%, but alpha fell to 2.04 from 2.74, beta rose to 1.10 from 0.96, Sharpe fell to 0.73 from 0.87, and max drawdown deepened to -49.13% from -31.96%. The benefit is lower implementation drag, with estimated cost of 6.53 and much lower turnover than many other optimized variants. But the portfolio still ends up concentrated, with top 5 at 71.45%. So the combo screen is not a safer version of the baseline; it is an alternative active bet that trades similar return for materially worse downside and volatility.

  strategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.annualizedReturnstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.alphastrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.betastrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.sharpestrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.maxDrawdownstrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.metrics.totalEstimatedCoststrategyViews.combo-equal-screen.concentrationstrategyViews.baseline.metrics.annualizedReturnstrategyViews.baseline.metrics.alphastrategyViews.baseline.metrics.betastrategyViews.baseline.metrics.sharpestrategyViews.baseline.metrics.maxDrawdown

  ↳ Before selecting the combo screen, compare its drawdown, beta, and concentration against the baseline to decide whether lower top-name dominance is actually compensating you for much deeper downside.