How every report is produced.
Each published company report follows the same sequence — no exceptions and no favorites. The same disciplined sequence runs on a mega-cap compounder and a small-cap cyclical alike: we decide what kind of business it is, assemble the evidence, value it through several independent lenses, argue the bear case before the bull, score it against a fixed rubric, and only then synthesize a rating. What follows is the approach in plain terms — what each step does and what it produces. The specific parameters, weights and recipes that calibrate it stay in the engine.
One discipline, two levels of resolution
Two public research frameworks sit behind the platform: one for individual companies and one for the broader market. We show the principles, the reader-facing checks, and the version history here while the internal orchestration, calibration controls and private benchmarks stay proprietary.
A structured company-level workflow: business context, evidence gathering, financial-quality review, valuation triangulation, risk review, sensitivity, and final synthesis. Built for one company at a time.
Read the full per-stock methodologyA dated outlook on the broader market: regime scorecard, breadth, sector rotation, valuation dispersion across the index, and a probability-weighted scenario range. One report for the macro picture, published as a verified edition when available.
Read the market-level methodologySix phases, run in the same order, on every name
The order is the point. Framing comes before evidence; the bear case comes before the rating. Each phase below is named and described conceptually — enough to judge the rigor, without the internal thresholds that would let it be gamed.
Classify the company
Before a single number is modeled, we decide what kind of business we are looking at.
Every company is sorted into one of our coverage archetypes — durable compounders, cyclicals, financials, capital-intensive operators, hyper-growth names and others. The archetype is the lens that follows the company through the rest of the analysis: it decides which valuation methods carry weight and how demanding each assumption should be. A deep cyclical and a wide-moat compounder are never judged on the same template.
Gather the evidence
We assemble one complete, current picture of the business before drawing any conclusion.
The multi-year financial record, the latest quarter and forward expectations, the competitive position and sources of any moat, and the comparable set the company trades against are reconciled into a single evidence base. Nothing downstream is allowed to run ahead of the evidence that supports it.
Build multiple valuation lenses
No single model decides fair value. We value every business several independent ways.
Intrinsic, scenario and relative methods are each built from the same evidence base, then triangulated. We pay as much attention to where the lenses disagree as to where they agree — wide dispersion is itself information. The result is one calculated house Fair value, with the calculated high endpoint labelled separately as Potential value.
Stress-test the thesis — bear case first
We write the bear case before the bull case, on purpose.
The most credible ways the thesis could be wrong are documented first, then pressure-tested across downside scenarios, a 5×5 sensitivity grid, and a fixed accounting-quality gate. Only the conviction that survives that scrutiny is allowed to inform the upside view — a deliberate guard against the optimism that creeps into most research.
Score against a fixed rubric
Every company is graded on the same scorecard, so business quality and risk can be compared across the coverage universe.
Business quality, balance-sheet resilience, valuation and risk are scored consistently from name to name. The rubric is identical for a mega-cap compounder and a small-cap cyclical — there is no bespoke grading and no soft pages for names the firm happens to like. A score is comparable across the whole universe.
Synthesize a rating
Finally, the lenses and the scorecard are reconciled into one published view.
The rating follows the report-date price's discount or premium to the house Fair value. Business quality, risk, and margin of safety inform the analysis and positioning guidance separately; they do not override the rating. The report supports that conclusion with a separately labelled Potential value, reader-safe valuation model cards, sensitivity analysis, material risks, and dated public evidence.
The models we triangulate
Fair value is never one model’s answer. Five lenses are built from the same evidence base and reconciled into one house Fair value, with the calculated high endpoint labelled Potential value. Each lens answers a different question and is documented in the per-stock methodology.
What is the company’s future profit stream worth today?
Projects the SBC-adjusted earnings a business can sustainably generate and discounts them back at cost of equity — the anchor intrinsic estimate for stable, profitable companies.
Open the modelWhat could it be worth across bull, base and bear?
Carries the business forward under distinct futures so uncertainty stays explicit. The public forecast shows Base and Bull, while the numeric Bear target remains in the dedicated bear-case section.
Open the modelWhat does today’s price already assume?
Inverts the usual question: instead of solving for value, it solves for the growth the current price implies — a clean test of whether the market’s expectations are reasonable.
Open the modelWhat would an owner actually pocket in cash?
Strips reported profit back to the cash an owner could withdraw without starving the business (net income plus D&A, less maintenance capex) — a conservative floor that keeps accounting optics honest.
Open the modelHow is it priced against comparable businesses?
Places the company against a like-for-like cohort on growth-aware multiples (forward P/E relative to growth), so the intrinsic work is sanity-checked against what the market pays for similar economics.
Open the modelTwo principles the process is built around
Cash flows and accounting quality are examined
We examine whether reported profit is backed by cash, how accruals affect earnings, and whether returns on capital are durable. These findings inform the valuation assumptions and risk discussion. The rating reflects the analysis price relative to fair value; accounting and risk scores do not override it.
The bear case is written first
Most research reaches a conclusion and then reaches for the evidence. We invert that. The bear case is documented before any bullish synthesis, so the downside is argued on its own merits rather than as an afterthought. The upside view has to survive a case that was built to defeat it, and the material downside tests whether the house conclusion remains defensible. Material risks remain explicit alongside the price-based rating.
Methodology v3.2
The method is versioned, and every report is stamped
The methodology is treated as a living document under version control. Each published report records the version it ran under, so a number from one cycle can always be read against the rules that produced it. When the approach changes materially, the version increments and the change is logged — analysis is never quietly altered beneath you.
Methodology changelogFigures, tickers and units are invariant across languages — only the prose is translated. This page describes the approach and what it produces; it does not disclose the internal parameters, thresholds or weights that calibrate the analysis. Educational analysis only — not financial advice.