What Stock Research Worth Paying For Looks Like: Five Marks of Verifiability
Good research doesn't ask you to believe it. It lets you check it. Here are five marks you can spot at a glance.
Why "verifiable" matters more than "sounds professional"
There is no shortage of content about any popular stock. What's in short supply is this: after reading it, can you go check whether it was right?
Most content can't pass that test. It gives you conclusions, emotion and confidence, but no sources. However well written, such content has exactly one use — it makes you feel smart when it's right and leaves you clueless about what went wrong when it isn't.
Research that's actually worth money is research you can verify. Each of the five marks below can be seen before you pay a cent.
Mark one: every key number has a source
Not "reportedly" or "industry sources say," but: which document, which reporting period, which line item. Every formal disclosure by a US-listed company sits in the SEC's public system, free for anyone to read. Research that skips this step tells you the author either didn't check or doesn't want you to.
Mark two: it states what must be true — and what would prove it wrong
Behind every conclusion in good research there is a sentence like: "This holds if X; if Y happens, this is wrong." That sentence tells you what to do when things change, instead of leaving you to find out from the share price.
Research without that sentence is asking for your unconditional trust. Nobody deserves unconditional trust, including us.
Mark three: facts, interpretations and forecasts are kept apart
"Revenue grew twenty percent last fiscal year" is a fact. "Growth came mainly from the new product line" is an interpretation. "That growth rate will hold next year" is a forecast. The three differ enormously in reliability, and blending them is the most common — and most harmful — trick in the trade: it lets a forecast borrow the credibility of a fact.
As you read, try tagging every sentence with one of those three labels. The sentences you can't tag are usually the ones doing the switching.
Mark four: it says exactly where it differs from consensus
The price already contains most people's expectations. Research that merely restates those expectations in new words can't help you earn more than the market — you'd be paying twice for something already paid for.
Research worth paying for states plainly: here is what the market currently assumes, here is what we see differently, and here is the specific number where the difference lies. You may disagree with the conclusion, but at least you've been given something concrete to argue with.
Mark five: it speaks plainly
Jargon has two uses: precision, and concealment. Telling them apart is easy — replace the term with everyday words and ask whether the sentence still stands. If it does, the jargon was just saving space. If it doesn't, the jargon was hiding something the author hadn't thought through.
Good research dares to explain the most complex things in the most ordinary words, because it doesn't need to "sound professional" to convince you. It has sources.
How we hold ourselves to these five
These aren't standards we apply only to others. They're what we require of every piece of our own stock research: key numbers cite their SEC filing; conclusions state their premises and what would overturn them; facts, interpretations and forecasts sit in separate paragraphs; the difference from current market assumptions is spelled out; and there's no jargon anywhere in the text.
The opening and core thesis of every research page is public. Check us against these five marks first, then decide whether to register for the full content. You don't have to trust us. You only have to be able to check us.