Genesis Barbell Test v2 — Inception to Present

Panel 3 — Sleeve-Level Contribution Analysis

Computed from position-file sleeve values at key dates. Investment sleeves only (excludes deployable cash and stable value). Shock window: Feb 27 (peak) → Mar 31 (matching drawdown chart common-window). Full period: Feb 26 → Apr 11.

Shock Window: Feb 27 → Mar 31 −$27,204 (−6.85%)

Matches drawdown chart common-window. Includes active trades (GRID sale, VRT buy, SCHO/BNDX rebalance) — FoC drop is partly management, not purely market.

Sleeve	Pole	$ Change	Sleeve Return	% of Loss	Label
International	—	−$13,760	−14.13%	50.6%	Primary Drag
US Core	Intelligence	−$7,561	−7.70%	27.8%	Major Drag
FoC*	Intelligence	−$7,404	−28.50%	27.2%	Drag (incl. GRID sale)
Real Assets	Action	−$1,007	−2.80%	3.7%	Minor Drag
Bond Foundation	Ballast	+$1,317	+1.15%	−4.8%	Absorber
Alternatives	Action	+$1,212	+4.81%	−4.5%	Absorber

*FoC includes GRID sale (~$7K proceeds moved to cash). Pure market return for remaining FoC positions was smaller.

Full Authoritative Period: Feb 26 → Apr 11 −$4,902 (−1.24%)

Sleeve	Pole	$ Change	Sleeve Return	Label
Real Assets	Action	+$2,435	+6.88%	Positive
Bond Foundation	Ballast	+$2,112	+1.85%	Positive
Alternatives	Action	+$1,515	+6.06%	Positive
US Core	Intelligence	−$1,317	−1.33%	Drag
FoC*	Intelligence	−$3,486	−13.26%	Major Drag (incl. GRID sale)
International	—	−$6,161	−6.33%	Major Drag

International Decomposition: Feb 27 → Mar 31

Tests whether the International drag was concentrated in cyclical/materials (MXI) or distributed across broad ex-US beta.

Ticker	Type	Feb 27	Mar 31	Return
SCHF	Broad Developed ex-US	$43,924	$36,051	−17.92%
SCHE	Emerging Markets	$23,868	$21,209	−11.14%
MXI	Cyclical / Materials	$17,714	$15,635	−11.74%
EWC	Canada	$6,061	$5,556	−8.34%
SS_GACEQ	Broad ex-US (Omnicom)	$5,831	$5,187	−11.05%

Key findings (post-GPT review, window-matched):

1. International was the primary drag (−14.13%, 50.6% of shock-window loss). The decomposition shows the pain was not concentrated in the cyclical/materials overlay (MXI −11.74%) — it was worst in broad developed ex-US (SCHF −17.92%). This is a geographic exposure issue, not a sleeve-composition issue. In this specific energy/geopolitical shock, ex-US equity broadly underperformed US equity.

2. Bond Foundation and Alternatives were the actual absorbers in the shock window (+1.15% and +4.81% respectively). Bond Foundation was initially flagged as a “minor drag” using the earlier Feb 27→Mar 25 window; on the correct matching window through Mar 31, it turned positive.

3. FoC’s −28.50% is contaminated by the GRID sale (~$7K of the $7.4K decline). The remaining FoC positions (VRT, GOOGL, ROBT) had a much smaller market loss. Do not read this as “FoC collapsed under stress.”

4. The Action pole earned its keep over the full period (Real Assets +6.88%, Alternatives +6.06%) but was flat-to-minor-drag during the acute shock. The value accrued in the recovery, not the crash.

Verdict

The short answer: The barbell worked. Genesis returned +6.93% vs SWTSX +1.05% over 5 months, and absorbed 2.36 percentage points of max drawdown (series-level: −6.36% vs −8.72%). Using a common-window comparison from the shared peak (Feb 27 → Mar 31), the cushion narrows to 1.31pp (Genesis −6.36% vs SWTSX −7.67%). Both methods show the diversification absorbed real pain.

The honest worry: 56.85% US concentration + equity-dependent exposure means you’re still correlated to the S&P on bad days. The sleeve contribution data above shows the problem concretely: this International sleeve implementation (−14.13% in the shock window) was the primary drag, not an absorber — and the decomposition shows the pain was broad geographic exposure (SCHF −17.92%), not just the cyclical overlay. Bond Foundation and Alternatives were the actual absorbers (+1.15% and +4.81% respectively). The barbell softened the blow across the full period, but during the acute shock, the defensive work came from bonds and alternatives, not from geographic diversification. The architecture works — but in this specific energy/geopolitical shock, the International sleeve amplified rather than absorbed.

Why inception matters: Measuring only the shock window (Feb 26 → Apr 11) shows Genesis −0.97% vs SWTSX −1.68% — the barbell lost less, but by a modest margin. Extending to inception reveals the full story: the diversified sleeves compounded differently during the pre-shock build-up, creating the +5.88pp return gap. The shock tested the architecture; the build-up is where the alpha accrued.

Data limitations: Pre-Feb-26 HH values are reconstructed from schwab_weekly prices × pinned share counts + Omnicom linear interpolation from 3 screenshot anchors. SWTSX price for Mar 25 sourced from swtsx_drawdown field ($15.79). Apr 7–9 SWTSX interpolated. Dates use AEST paste convention (Saturday recording of Friday US close). 5 months is better than 44 days but still one macro event — not a statistically robust sample.

GPT adversarial review (v1 + v2): v1 reviewed Apr 11 2026: SWTSX Mar 25 corrected, 44-day return corrected, common-window DD added, tooltip fixed, date convention documented. Score: 7.5/10 pre-fix. v2 CIO memo (A-/8.8): identified hidden beta risk, benchmark ladder gap, need for formal sleeve attribution. v2 sleeve review (A/9.0): flagged window mismatch (now fixed — attribution matches drawdown chart Feb 27→Mar 31), language overreaches (tightened), FoC GRID sale contamination (noted), Bond Foundation window sensitivity (corrected). International reclassified from “Absorber” to “Primary Drag.” Bond Foundation reclassified from “Minor Drag” to “Absorber” on matching window.