How did adding two simple demands turn a losing defensive screen into a winning one? The teardown takes it apart.
Plain low volatility lagged the market. The Conservative Formula kept the calm and added dividends and momentum, and it beat the market by seven points without falling any harder. This is the machinery that made the difference, ingredient by ingredient.
The insight behind the formula is that "calm" alone is not information; plenty of calm stocks are calm because they are going nowhere. Demanding that a calm stock also pays a dividend and is trending up filters those out, leaving steadiness that is actually attached to something working.
The top thirty was the sweet spot
Concentration tells you where the edge lives. The broad decile made about 16% a year, the thirty best all-rounders about 20%, and squeezing further into the tightest ten gave a little back. That gentle peak in the middle is the mark of a robust, well-spread signal: you do not need to gamble on a handful of names, but you do want the concentrated thirty rather than the diluted decile. It rewards conviction without demanding recklessness.
Steady across the weather
Split the record by macro backdrop and the formula stays positive and competitive in most of them, the dividend leg paying through flat markets, the momentum leg catching the rising ones, and the low-volatility base keeping the falls shallow. It is not perfectly all-weather, but the three ingredients cover for one another, which is exactly why the combined screen is sturdier than any of them alone.
How reliably did it beat the market?
A coin toss over one year, as almost everything is, then clearly ahead over three and five as the calm, paying, trending names did their slow work.
Those three and five year win rates, paired with an index-like drawdown, are what a genuinely conservative strategy is supposed to look like, and rarely does.
The safe idea, done properly
The Conservative Formula earns its place as a constructive counterpoint. Where a plain low-risk screen confused comfort with edge, this one demanded that its calm stocks also earn their keep, and the result held up across cuts and regimes on nine years of Indian data. The one thing it has not yet been shown is a true, prolonged crash, so the honest next step is to stress it against the worst years you can find before trusting the calm to hold. That test is a few clicks away, which is rather the point.
And the recipe is yours to adjust
Reweight the three legs, tighten the volatility screen, or swap dividend yield for total shareholder payout, and watch the balance of return and calm shift. The formula is a starting point; the version you could actually hold through a bad decade is the one worth finding.
So we took it to Krest, and ran it through the whole test.
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.
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 the Conservative Formula (ranked on three-year volatility, dividend yield and twelve-month momentum, market cap above ₹1,000 cr), reconstructed yearly over the last nine years of Indian data (since July 2017), measured against the Nifty 500 total return index. Concentration, regime and base rate figures computed across all rolling windows; the shorter window contains no severe multi-year bear market. Because this rests on about nine years of history, a longer run of data could change the conclusions.
Krest · mykrest.com