Krest
See it live →
← The overview
The Krest Test · The full teardown
We took it to Krest.

The blend smooths the quiet years and offers no net in the crash. The teardown shows the one way to make it far worse.

The overview found the celebrated value and momentum pairing steadier in ordinary years but no safer in the storm. This half is about how you hold it: the single mistake that turned a solid strategy into the worst drawdown in the series, and what the blend really is underneath.

Educational6 min readPart two of two

If two factors diversify each other, the instinct is to trust the blend enough to concentrate it. That instinct, here, was catastrophic. The everyday smoothing that value and momentum provide does nothing to protect a portfolio that is too small to absorb a single blow up.

Concentrating the blend was the worst bet in the series

We ran it four ways. The broad decile and the book's thirty both compounded near 18% a year with the deep, but survivable, falls of any value strategy. Squeeze into the ten best combined scores, though, and the return collapsed to 13% while the drawdown blew out to about 82%, the deepest hole any strategy dug in this whole series. Blending factors does not make individual stocks safe, and a ten stock book gives a single imploding name enough weight to take the whole thing down. Diversification across factors is no substitute for diversification across names.

Return by how tightly you held the blend
Full decade return a year · vs Nifty 500 ↗ See it live on Krest
The concentrated ten earned the least and fell the most, an 82% drawdown. Hold this one broad, or not at all.

Underneath, a cheap small cap tilt

Ask what the blend most resembles and the answer is a familiar one: a broad, smaller company index, tracked at about 0.93. On top of that base it added a healthy excess of roughly 8% a year, so the pairing did earn genuine alpha, not just factor beta. But the label matters. This is a systematic tilt toward cheap, rising, smaller companies, with all the volatility that implies, dressed in the respectable language of factor diversification.

0.93
correlation to a broad equal weight index · a small cap tilt at heart
+8%
a year of alpha over that index · the pairing did earn its return
−82%
worst fall for the concentrated ten · the deepest in the series

Even the smoothing leans on the cycle

The everyday diversification was real, but it was not weatherproof. Split the decade by backdrop and the blend, like its value half, did clearly better when growth was expanding than when it was slowing. The momentum leg helps in trending markets and the value leg in recoveries, but both are quietly betting on a healthy economy. When growth stalls, the pairing has no engine to fall back on, which is part of why the crash protection never materialised.

Median monthly return by macro backdrop
Top 30 · by direction of growth, inflation and rates
Stronger when growth rose. Two cyclical factors blended are still, together, cyclical.

How to actually own the pairing

Put it together and the guidance is simple, and the opposite of the instinct. Own the blend broadly, thirty names or more, because its diversification lives across stocks, not just factors. Expect a steadier ride than either value or momentum alone in ordinary years, and no special protection at all in a genuine crash. And know that underneath the elegant theory you are holding a cheap, small, cyclical basket that happens to earn real alpha. It is a good strategy, held wide and held humbly. Concentrated or oversold as crash insurance, it will hurt you.

And the balance is yours to set

How much value versus momentum, how many names, whether to add a genuine defensive leg for the downturns. Each choice reshapes the ride. The only way to find a blend you could hold through an 82% near miss is to build it yourself and watch the decade rebuild.

What it held, and the worst it would have handed you

Two last checks make the risk concrete: what the basket was actually made of, by company size, and, instead of the single drawdown path, the worst fall you would have suffered no matter which month you started and held for five years.

By company size, share of the basket
Average market cap mix across the decade
Worst fall by the month you happened to start
Maximum drawdown over each five year hold
Every start date, its worst five year drawdown; the dashed line is the median. This is the fall you had to be able to sit through, wherever you came in.

So we took it to Krest, and ran it through the whole test.

KREST TESTED · RUN ON REAL HISTORY ·
Method mark
Krest Tested
We took the value and momentum blend apart, cut by cut and regime by regime, on a decade of Indian data. The rigour is ours; the verdict is yours.

Free · no account needed

Test before you trust.

Don't take our word for any of it. Every figure in this teardown came from a few clicks on Krest, and each is a click from the full, live analysis. Reading and exploring is free.

More Krest Research

For education only. Not investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security, strategy, or product. Past performance does not guarantee future results, and all investing carries risk, including the possible loss of capital. Make your own decisions, and consider consulting a SEBI registered investment adviser.

Best effort analysis. Prepared on a best effort basis from historical data and may contain errors, omissions, or assumptions. Shared for information and discussion only, and should be independently verified before you rely on it. Krest accepts no liability for any decision made or loss incurred based on it.

Figures reflect a value and momentum blend (earnings yield, price to book and 12 month momentum, positive EBIT, market cap above ₹1,000 cr), reconstructed yearly over the last ten years of Indian data (since June 2016), measured against the Nifty 500 total return index. Concentration, closest index and regime figures computed across all rolling windows. The value and momentum combination is associated with Cliff Asness and AQR.

Krest · mykrest.com