By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agree that Per Stirling's addition of FNX is not a strong conviction bet, with the position size being too small to indicate a significant shift in their mid-cap strategy. They express concerns about the fund's expense ratio, potential style drift, and the risk of tracking error in a changing macro regime.
Risk: The risk of cumulative tracking error and turnover drag from AlphaDEX rotations in a volatile cycle, as highlighted by ChatGPT.
Opportunity: The opportunity for the FNX position to become meaningful if mid-cap factor leadership persists, as mentioned by ChatGPT.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Per Stirling Capital Management added 34,644 shares of FNX during Q1 2026, representing an estimated transaction value of approximately $4.6 million.
The purchase brought the fund's total stake to 76,851 shares valued at $9.9 million at quarter-end.
After the purchase, FNX accounts for 1.1% of Per Stirling's 13F reportable assets under management (AUM), placing it outside the fund’s top five holdings.
According to a recent SEC filing, Per Stirling Capital Management, LLC. increased its position in the First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund (NASDAQ:FNX) by 34,644 shares during the first quarter of 2026. Based on the average closing price for the quarter, the estimated transaction value was approximately $4.6 million. The fund's quarter-end FNX stake totaled 76,851 shares with a reported value of $9.9 million.
NYSE: IVE: $22.3 million (2.5% of AUM)
As of May 11, 2026, FNX shares were trading at $138.67, up about 29% over the past year -- outperforming both the S&P 500 and its Mid-Cap Blend category benchmark by roughly 2 percentage points each.
| Metric | Value | |---|---| | AUM | $1.3 billion | | Expense ratio | 0.62% | | Dividend yield | 0.84% | | 1-year return (as of 5/11/26) | 28.84% |
The First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund (FNX) is a U.S.-listed ETF designed to deliver enhanced mid-cap equity exposure through a systematic, factor-driven selection process.
Per Stirling's decision to increase its FNX position by more than 80% in Q1 -- adding more than 34,000 shares worth roughly $4.6 million -- may simply reflect routine rebalancing. The transaction only represented about 0.5% of the firm’s assets under mangement (AUM). But this was still a meaningful addition to an existing stake, and it signals Per’s continued conviction in the mid-cap space.
That conviction looks well-timed. FNX has gained approximately 29% over the past year, outperforming both the S&P 500 and its Mid-Cap Blend peer group. The AlphaDEX methodology behind FNX is worth understanding. Rather than simply weighting stocks by market cap (as a traditional index fund would), it screens holdings based on fundamental growth and value factors. The goal is to generate better risk-adjusted returns than a plain-vanilla mid-cap index -- and lately, FNX has been delivering.
Mid-cap stocks often fly under the radar compared to large-caps, but historically they've offered a compelling blend of growth potential and relative stability. For investors looking to add diversified mid-cap exposure without picking individual stocks, FNX offers a disciplined, factor-based approach backed by a well-established provider in First Trust. However, those comfortable with index funds should note that FNX’s factor-based methodology comes with a meaningfully higher expense ratio -- 0.6% -- than a passive mid-cap ETF. The fund also kicks out a modest 0.8% dividend yield, which won't move the needle for income-focused investors on its own, but adds a small return cushion on top of any price appreciation.
FNX is the kind of broadly diversified mid-cap fund that can make a sensible complement to the large-cap exposure most investors already hold. Per Stirling's incremental buy suggests at least one institutional manager sees continued upside from here.
Before you buy stock in First Trust Exchange-Traded AlphaDEX Fund - First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and First Trust Exchange-Traded AlphaDEX Fund - First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $469,293! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,381,332!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 993% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 17, 2026. *
Andy Gould has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The 0.62% expense ratio creates a significant performance hurdle that requires consistent factor outperformance to justify over passive mid-cap alternatives."
Per Stirling’s 80% increase in FNX is a classic 'factor-tilt' play, but investors should be wary of the 0.62% expense ratio. While the AlphaDEX methodology has outperformed recently, mid-cap factor funds often suffer from 'style drift' during market rotations. By screening for growth and value, FNX effectively creates a high-turnover portfolio that can struggle in momentum-driven environments. With the fund now trading near 52-week highs, this move looks more like a tactical rebalance to capture mid-cap tailwinds rather than a long-term conviction shift. Investors paying 62 basis points for a mid-cap core strategy should ensure this isn't just beta in disguise compared to cheaper, passive alternatives like IJH.
The AlphaDEX methodology's systematic rebalancing is specifically designed to rotate into winning factors, potentially justifying the higher expense ratio if it continues to capture excess risk-adjusted returns in a volatile mid-cap environment.
"This is a modest rebalancing trade being marketed as a bullish signal, but the position size and portfolio weight reveal no meaningful conviction from Per Stirling."
Per Stirling's $4.6M FNX addition is being sold as conviction in mid-caps, but the framing obscures a critical detail: this represents only 0.5% of their $1.3B AUM and moved FNX to just 1.1% of portfolio — well outside top five holdings. That's not conviction; that's a rounding error. The article conflates an 80% increase in *this specific position* with meaningful capital deployment. FNX's 29% YTD return is real, but the fund charges 62bps versus 3-5bps for passive mid-cap alternatives (VB, IJH). The factor-based methodology has worked recently, but there's zero evidence Per Stirling's small buy signals anything beyond routine rebalancing into an asset class that's already run hard.
If FNX's AlphaDEX methodology is genuinely outperforming, a 1.1% position could be a deliberate underweight — signaling skepticism about sustainability at current valuations rather than conviction. The article never asks why Per Stirling didn't increase it to 3-5% if they truly believed in it.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"A modest 1.1% AUM tilt into FNX does not constitute a durable conviction about mid-cap alpha or FNX outperforming benchmarks."
Per Stirling’s Q1 add of 34,644 FNX shares (~$4.6m) sits at 1.1% of its $1.3b AUM, a modest tilt into a mid-cap, factor-driven ETF. The signal is ambiguous: it could reflect routine rebalancing or a cautious tilt toward the mid-cap cycle, but it’s not a conviction bet—FNX remains a pricey, rules-based product with ~0.62% expense and a history of tracking error versus cap-weighted peers. The risk is that a shift in macro regime (rates, growth, value vs. growth) could erode the strategy’s alpha edge, and mid-cap leadership can rotate quickly. Unless Per Stirling buys meaningfully more over successive quarters, the message is not durable.
The move could simply be routine rebalancing with a very small stake; there’s no durable signal given FNX’s expense drag and potential for mid-cap style rotations to underperform.
"The modest position size in FNX may be a function of liquidity constraints and high transaction costs rather than a lack of conviction by the firm."
Claude is right to frame this as a rounding error, but we are missing the liquidity angle. Mid-cap factor ETFs like FNX often face capacity constraints; if Per Stirling wanted a larger position, they might be constrained by the bid-ask spreads inherent in AlphaDEX's high-turnover methodology. The real risk isn't just 'style drift' or expense ratios—it's that institutional allocators are forced into these expensive, sub-scale vehicles because the underlying mid-cap liquidity is too thin for larger, more cost-efficient tactical shifts.
"Liquidity constraints are unsubstantiated; the 1.1% position more likely signals skepticism about mid-cap valuations than institutional forced-buying."
Gemini's liquidity constraint theory is speculative—no evidence FNX faces capacity issues that would force Per Stirling into a 1.1% position rather than a larger one. If mid-cap liquidity were truly constrictive, we'd see wider bid-ask spreads or explicit commentary from the fund. More likely: Per Stirling simply doesn't believe mid-caps warrant >1% exposure at current valuations, which Claude's underweight framing captures better. The liquidity argument inverts the real question: why add to an expensive, high-turnover vehicle at all if cheaper passive alternatives exist?
[Unavailable]
"A 1.1% FNX tilt can matter under regime-driven rotations, and the risk lies in tracking error and cost drag rather than mere 'conviction' at a small size."
Claude’s ‘rounding error’ critique misses path-dependency: a 1.1% FNX tilt can become meaningful if mid-cap factor leadership persists, and the signal isn’t just price but regime risk. The real danger is cumulative tracking error and turnover drag from AlphaDEX rotations in a volatile cycle; if growth/value leadership flips, this small stake could amplify losses rather than protect capital. A proper test would be a multi-quarter size ramp to gauge durability.
The panelists generally agree that Per Stirling's addition of FNX is not a strong conviction bet, with the position size being too small to indicate a significant shift in their mid-cap strategy. They express concerns about the fund's expense ratio, potential style drift, and the risk of tracking error in a changing macro regime.
The opportunity for the FNX position to become meaningful if mid-cap factor leadership persists, as mentioned by ChatGPT.
The risk of cumulative tracking error and turnover drag from AlphaDEX rotations in a volatile cycle, as highlighted by ChatGPT.