Who we serve

You run your own book and you are willing to hold a position through a multi-year thesis, but you do not have a research department behind you. What is usually missing is not opinion, since there is an abundance of that. It is the primary work: what the filings actually say, where the revenue really comes from, what the balance sheet can fund, and which single event would break the thesis.

Our notes are built to be that layer. Every figure carries its source and its as-of date, and every stance carries the risk that would invalidate it.

• A key-data box carrying capitalization, cash, short structure, consensus and ownership
• Risks rated by severity, up to and including existential
• An analyst agenda listing the questions we have not answered yet

If you trade around events instead of holding through them, the useful part of a note is the structure: who owns the float, how crowded the short is, how many days it takes to cover, and precisely which catalysts sit on the calendar between now and the re-rating.

We treat positioning as a first-class input. A 19.5% short base at a 12.8 day cover ratio into a defined catalyst path is a different setup from the same stock with no crowd on the other side, and we say so explicitly.

• Short interest, days to cover, and the direction of travel by 13F filer
• The next binary event, and what a clean or dirty print does to the thesis
• A crowded short read as a setup and not a guarantee, because that is what it is

Smaller institutional allocators face a specific problem: the theme is identifiable years before the winning company is. Backing the wrong sponsor in the right theme is the most common way to be correct and still lose money.

That is the problem our bottleneck work is built for. When we can identify the constraint that gates an entire modality, whether delivery, manufacturing capacity, a regulatory screen or an insurance regime, we map the listed vehicles that own it, because those names monetize the theme regardless of which sponsor wins a given indication.

• Allocation maps naming the constraint, the owner, the ticker and our stance
• Where we would sit at each end of a theme, and what sits uncomfortably in the middle
• A flag when the cleanest expression of a theme is not yet listed

We are read by people who do this professionally and want a second, independent teardown of a name they already cover, particularly on the parts of a company that sit outside a standard model: board composition and the deal history behind it, political and regulatory exposure screened from primary records, and the supply chain two steps upstream of the ticker.

We publish our sources and our disagreements with consensus in the same document, so the work can be checked.

• Director networks and prior exits, taken from filings and primary bios
• Regulatory and political screens, including federal contribution records where they matter
• The places our framework departs from the published street view, and why