The question
Graham, Bogle and Swensen each had a famous way to invest. How do I check a fund against a philosophy?
The idea
- Each belief becomes a rule with three parts:A number read from the fund's data, such as its fee or the price of its holdings against their earnings.A line, the investor's own threshold wherever they published one.A band, a small margin around the line, which reads Mixed.
- ETFIQ's Investment Committee does exactly this. It has 12 seats. Eleven apply one investor's published rules each. The twelfth, the ETFIQ Skeptic, uses ETFIQ's own measures to test what the others found. Each seat reads Supports, Mixed, Challenges or Not enough data. They describe the data, never a call to act.
- Seats disagree because philosophies disagree. That is the point.
Worked example
SPY tracks the S&P 500. Here are four of its seats, as of Nov 10, 2026. (An example, not a pick.)
Graham-style Margin of Safety. Benjamin Graham wanted to pay little for what a company earns.
- Number: the holdings' price is 35.1 times their average yearly profit over three years. This is the P/E (price to earnings). Higher means paying more per dollar of profit.
- Line: 15 times or less.
- 35.1 ÷ 15 = 2.3 times Graham's line. Price against book value (what they own less what they owe): 5.6x against his 1.5x.
- Challenges.
Bogle-style Low Cost. John Bogle wanted the lowest cost for the same exposure.
- SPY's fee is 0.09% a year. That passes ETFIQ's line of 0.20% or less.
- A second rule compares it with the cheapest fund tracking the same index. SPY costs 0.07 points more, which reads Mixed.
- The seat can Support only when that comparison passes. Mixed.
Swensen-style Diversification. David Swensen wanted broad holdings across core asset classes.
- SPY is a core class held whole, with no niche bets: both pass.
- Its ten largest companies hold 38.9%, against ETFIQ's line of under 25%, which reads Mixed.
- Most criteria pass. Supports.
The ETFIQ Skeptic. It asks whether the fund did what it says.
- SPY trailed its benchmark by 0.1 points over a year.
- The Skeptic objects at 2 points behind. Mixed.
What you just saw: one fund, one day, opposite readings. Graham's rules punish high prices; Swensen's reward breadth. Both are right about their own question. The committee shows which philosophy your fund fits.
No investor named is affiliated with or endorses ETFIQ.
The common mistake
"Six seats challenge SPY, so it's a bad fund." The committee is not a vote. A seat built for cheap stocks will challenge any fund priced near the market. First ask: which of these philosophies is mine? A Bogle follower weighs the Low Cost seat; a Graham reader, Margin of Safety.
A second mistake: reading "Not enough data" as a fail. The seat simply could not measure enough to judge.
Check your understanding
Pick an answer to see why. Two of three right passes the lesson.
1. A Graham-style seat reads a fund priced at 18 times three years' earnings, against a line of 15 with a band just above it. The number falls in the band. What does the seat read on that rule?Answer: B. Mixed. a number inside the band reads Mixed. Not C: Challenges needs it to clear the band.2. On the same day, a fund reads Supports from the Swensen seat and Challenges from the Graham seat. What is true?Answer: C. Each seat tested a different rule, so both can be right. breadth and cheapness are different questions. Not A: disagreement is expected, not a fault.3. A reader cares most about low costs. Which seat speaks most directly to that?Answer: A. Bogle-style Low Cost. it tests the fee against a line and against same-index peers. Not D: the tally mixes philosophies you may not hold.
Takeaways
- Every seat is a number, a line and a band; read all three before the state.
- Seats disagree because philosophies do; find yours.
- The tally is not a vote, and no seat is a call to act.