Conventional wisdom holds that investing and politics don’t mix, and more specifically that markets don’t care who is the U.S. president.

That view might be changing. The country is very politically divided, and some publicly traded companies have come out in support or opposition to comments and policies from the Trump administration.

One exchange-traded fund issuer says it’s time for a politically based investment methodology. Point Bridge Capital’s Point Bridge GOP Stock Tracker ETF (MAGA) tracks an index of 150 U.S. large-cap companies whose political action committees and employees donate money to or are very supportive of Republican party candidates. Or as the fund literature states, the fund is a way “to bring your Republican investment values to life.” It follows the equal-weighted Point Bridge GOP Stock Tracker Index, which is rebalanced quarterly and reconstituted each June following the completion of an election cycle.

The fund began trading in September 2017 and had roughly $17 million in assets under management as of this year’s first quarter. MAGA was up 14.4% through March, which nearly regrouped its 14.7% loss last year. In comparison, the SDPR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) was up 13.5% this year and down 4.6% last year.

Hal Lambert, founder of Point Bridge Capital and a big donor to Texas GOP candidates, says the idea came after he heard about retailer Target’s 2016 decision to allow transgender customers to use bathrooms or fitting rooms that match their gender identity. He considered that a political move.

Although socially responsible investing is becoming more popular, he regards that as politically left-leaning. Lambert wanted an investment allowing “people more on the right side of things to do something similar, to basically put their money where their viewpoint is.”

So he created a rules-based methodology for stock selection, basing his index on political action committee donations. This takes his own personal viewpoint out when defining what conservative is, Lambert says. He culled individual companies’ political contribution data from the Federal Election Commission to build the index, which he calls “political beta.” To be eligible, companies must have donated at least $25,000 over the last two election cycles, and they are then ranked by the total net dollars and the net percentage of dollars given to Republicans instead of Democrats.

MAGA recently was weighted to industrials (23%), financials (18%) and energy (15%), giving it a large-cap value style tilt, Lambert says. Conagra Brands, Devon Energy and AutoZone were the recent top three holdings at just under 1% each. The fund has very little technology exposure since most tech companies donate to Democrats, he adds.

MAGA’s expense ratio of 0.72% is pricey, even for a principles-based fund, let alone a large-cap value-focused fund. But Lambert doesn’t think the high fee is a detraction for someone who wants to concentrate on Republican-leaning companies. Because of its equal weighting, he also doesn’t think it has too much overlap with other large-cap funds.

And by one measure, that appears to be the case. According to the ETF Research Center’s fund overlap tool, MAGA has a 27% overlap by weight with SPY. Overlap by weight is the percentage of a portfolio that’ll provide identical returns with another portfolio. In the case of MAGA and SPY, it’s the other 73% of MAGA’s portfolio where it has the opportunity to provide alpha and earn its fee.

Elsewhere, MAGA has a 30% overlap with the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP) and a 28% overlap with the Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX), a large-cap equal-weight value fund.

Rather than calling it a socially responsible fund, Lambert terms it politically responsible investing, although he says the industry may consider MAGA a thematic fund.

There aren’t too many other funds like MAGA in the ETF ecosystem. Two political policy-themed funds by EventShares, the Democratic Policies Fund (DEMS) and the Republican Policies Fund (GOP), which launched right after MAGA, were shut down last year. One EventShares fund that continues to trade is somewhat similar to MAGA—the EventShares U.S. Policy Alpha ETF (PLCY), an actively managed, total-market fund that looks for changes in U.S. government regulations, trade policies and fiscal spending as a basis for the companies that it invests in. PLCY used to trade under the name U.S. Tax Reform Fund (TAXR). It debuted in October 2017 and recently had $18 million in assets and a net expense ratio of 0.85%. It was up 11% through this year’s first quarter, and it fell 10.7% last year.

Ben Phillips, chief investment officer at EventShares, emphasizes that PLCY is not a political fund and notes that legislative policy doesn’t equal politics. “We’re politically agnostic,” he says. “It doesn’t matter who is in Congress; there are policy catalysts created year in, year out.”

He says PLCY is based on a 2013 academic research paper from Harvard University called “Legislating Stock Prices.” The paper worked under the assumption that legislators are privy to more insight and data on the companies they are legislating than other players in the market. It studied the impact that legislation had on stocks over 20 years and found that industries it classified as beneficiaries of legislation saw significantly more positive earnings surprises and positive analyst revisions in the months after the laws were enacted, along with significantly higher future sales and profitability.

Phillips says financial advisors told him they liked the idea of policy-based funds like TAXR, but they shied away from the DEMS and GOP funds.

“They were saying, ‘You know, I love it. I get it. But I’m never going to put a client in it; it’s too political. If they’re having a bad day and they see a ticker on their account that they don’t like, I could lose that client,’” Phillips says.

Rather than have separate GOP and DEMS ETFs that focus on policies favored by the two political parties, he revamped the idea of policy-driven ETFs by rolling together the themes from GOP, DEMS and TAXR to create PLCY, which considers overall congressional legislation and isn’t specific to one party or another. PLCY is considered a mid-cap growth core fund in the Morningstar style box, and it has very little overlap with top mid-cap funds such as the iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH), with which it has only a 4% overlap by weight, and the Vanguard Mid-Cap ETF (VO), with an overlap of just 9%.

Does the idea of politically themed investing have a future? Maybe, says Paul Weisbruch, head of ETF/options sales and trading at Esposito Securities. At the very least, he says, with the growth of thematic investing, the concept is probably better embraced than it would have been five or 10 years ago.

“In the past, the average investment advisor would stay out of the politics realm because of the risk of alienating customers or clients,” he says.

A fund based on a percentage of PAC donations could give rise to a Democratic party counterpart, Weisbruch says. Such funds could then be used in unconventional ways that the creators likely didn’t intend. Say if you don’t like a fund made up of Republican donors that “would be a really good way to hone in on short exposure,” Weisbruch says.

Barry Ritholtz, chairman and chief investment officer at Ritholtz Wealth Management, who has researched and written about the intersection of politics and investing, vetoes politics-focused investing.

He noted the stock market still rose when Democrats hated then-President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, and the markets rallied under President Barack Obama, whom Republicans said would be bad for business.

Wall Street doesn’t speak with one voice, he says, though he adds that it is thought of as more right-of-center politically, being anti-tax and anti-regulation in general.

Although the MAGA fund uses a rules-based index, Ritholtz says the rationale that companies that give money to one political party or another will somehow translate into better performance is flawed. “Why would that lead to better performance?” he asks.

He says he would be interested in academic research that looks at what elements of corporate lobbying and political donations might be correlated with improved market performance.

“That’s an argument that says we’ve identified a specific corporate behavior that results in long-term positive market return. Well, fantastic. That’s something everybody should be happy to put their money in,” he says.