yuraviontexa
We publish detailed analysis pieces that investment professionals reference in their own work. These aren't blog posts—they're research notes with data, methodology, and honest limitations.
When discount rates compress, traditional multiples stop working the way textbooks suggest. We examined how five different sectors adjusted their valuation frameworks during the 2020-2023 period, and what changed when rates rose again.
Request full analysis →
Small-cap companies have different reporting standards and incentives than large caps. Here's what institutional analysts check before trusting the numbers—and how often those checks catch problems.
Read methodology →Every quarter we take a recent market event or company situation and break down how different analytical approaches would have handled it. These are learning exercises, not investment recommendations.
Lithium prices fell 75% from peak to trough between mid-2023 and late 2024. Several ASX-listed producers went from heroes to potential write-offs. Traditional DCF models became useless because nobody knew what "normalized" prices meant anymore.
We showed how institutional analysts used cost curve analysis combined with global supply projections to value these companies. Instead of picking a price forecast, they modeled different scenarios and looked at which producers would survive under each one. The key wasn't predicting prices—it was understanding which companies had options when prices stayed low.
A fast-growing software company reported strong revenue growth for three years, but the stock price kept falling despite beating forecasts. We used this as a case study in distinguishing between reported numbers and economic reality.
Students learned to calculate cash conversion rates, examine customer concentration, and track changes in payment terms. Turned out the company was booking revenue upfront while customers paid over time, and a few large clients represented most of the growth. The market saw it before most analysts did.
Most finance courses teach you the theory perfectly. You learn CAPM, efficient markets, and proper DCF technique. Then you start working and realize companies don't behave like the models suggest.
The real skill is knowing when to trust the model and when to override it. That only comes from seeing enough situations where the textbook approach would have lost you money.
Bad analysis pretends to have more certainty than possible. Good analysis admits what it doesn't know and structures recommendations around that uncertainty.
When I'm training new analysts, the first thing I tell them is that being precisely wrong is worse than being roughly right. Most analysis failures come from false precision—using eight decimal places in your model while making wild guesses about growth rates.
Our study materials reflect how institutional research desks work. You'll learn to build models, sure. But you'll also learn how to present analysis to portfolio managers who've seen thousands of pitches. You'll understand what questions they ask and why your answers need to show you've thought about what could go wrong.
Because that's the real job—helping people make better decisions with incomplete information. The technical skills matter, but knowing what questions to ask matters more.