Executive Summary
Our track record this run is solid overall: the hit rate is 66.7% and the average signal return is 3.55%. Among the tiers with meaningful sample sizes, Sell is performing best on accuracy and average signal return, while Buy is the weakest this run; Strong Sell looks strong too, but it is based on only 2 calls, so we should treat that result cautiously.
This is one in a recurring series that reviews LF0 Research’s own past ratings against what actually happened to the stock. The goal is an honest scorecard, not a highlight reel — full methodology and every call we’ve ever made is at /research-performance/.
If You’d Followed Every Pick
Beyond individual calls, here’s the model portfolio question: what if you’d put $1 into every Buy/Strong Buy pick the day we published it, and a separate $1 short into every Sell/Strong Sell pick? We’ve rated stocks at very different times — some calls go back to June 2026, others were made last week — so each pick’s $1 only joins its book on its own publish date. The return below is pooled value versus total capital actually deployed at each point in time, not a return measured from one shared start date.
- Long book: -6.3% on 4 pick(s), $1 each. $4.00 deployed is worth $3.75 today.
- Short book: +4.0% on 59 pick(s), $1 each. $59.00 deployed is worth $61.34 today.
- Combined, long + short (i.e. every pick since we started): +3.3% on 63 pick(s), $1 each. $63.00 deployed is worth $65.08 today.
For comparison, here’s what the same $63.00 would have returned in a lump-sum buy-and-hold of the broad market since our first tracked pick (2026-06-09). This isn’t an identical methodology, since our capital went in gradually rather than all at once, but it’s the closest honest same-period reference point:
- S&P 500 (SPY): +4.2%. $63.00 would be worth $65.63 today.
- Nasdaq-100 (QQQ): +5.1%. $63.00 would be worth $66.19 today.
This Week’s Calls
BW — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What happened: We rated BW at $17.76 and it last traded at $5.79, a decline of 67.4%. The signal return was +67.4%.
Why: Our call held up because the original conclusion leaned on a recovery that had not yet shown up in cash generation, and that is still the right lens here. The debt maturity and weak EBITDA/cash flow profile were the key risks, and the stock’s drop shows that the market did not reward the recovery story before those issues were resolved.
FLNC — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What we said: We said FLNC had a large energy-storage opportunity, but that the stock still depended on backlog quality, margin execution, liquidity, and whether short interest was correctly pricing operational risk. The original conclusion was that revenue growth alone was not enough because the business was still leaning on financing and working-capital support rather than internal cash.
What happened: We rated FLNC at $14.42 and it last traded at $7.57, a decline of 47.5%. The signal return was +47.5%.
Why: That thesis held up because the specific concern was cash generation, not demand, and the stock moved lower as the market continued to discount the gap between growth and self-funding economics. The 39.0% short interest and negative EBITDA/free cash flow were exactly the kind of setup we warned could keep pressure on the shares.
MTZ — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What happened: We rated MTZ at $380.63 and it last traded at $213.66, a decline of 43.9%. The signal return was +43.9%.
Why: Our caution was justified because the original thesis centered on margin expansion and cash conversion that had not yet shown up, and the stock did not need much help from that argument to move lower. The 0.1% TTM FCF margin was the key warning sign, and it remained the right reason to stay defensive.
NLST — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What we said: We said the stock was pricing in cleaner cash conversion than Netlist had delivered, even though Q1 2026 revenue reached $104.9M and EBITDA turned positive at $8.6M. The original conclusion was that the valuation was ahead of the business because operating cash flow was still negative and the improvement had not yet shown up in cash.
What happened: We rated NLST at $2.44 and it last traded at $5.68, a gain of 132.8%. The signal return was -132.8%.
Why: This was the wrong call because we overweighted the cash-flow gap and underweighted how much the market would reward the revenue and EBITDA step-up. The specific thesis that revenue above $100M still needed to prove itself in cash did not protect us here, since the stock kept rerating before that cash conversion arrived.
SDGR — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What we said: We said Schrödinger had a real platform moat, but that the business was still not converting that moat into durable cash flow. The original conclusion was that the 3.9x EV/Revenue multiple was too rich while operating cash flow stayed deeply negative.
What happened: We rated SDGR at $17.40 and it last traded at $30.46, a gain of 75.1%. The signal return was -75.1%.
Why: This was also the wrong call because the market was willing to pay for the platform quality before cash flow turned. Our emphasis on negative operating cash flow was directionally sensible, but it was not enough to offset how strongly investors valued the moat and growth profile.
BMNR — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What happened: We rated BMNR at $17.74 and it last traded at $26.73, a gain of 50.7%. The signal return was -50.7%.
Why: Our bearish case did not hold because the stock kept rewarding the revenue jump even though we wanted more proof of cash conversion. The original concern about needing to see the top line turn into cash was valid in principle, but it was not enough to stop the shares from moving higher first.
How Each Rating Did
Buy — 4 call(s)
Buy is mixed this run: with 4 calls, the 50.0% accuracy is too small a sample to call it a durable edge. NUTX was the best performer and CAR the worst, which is a reminder that this tier still needs more consistency before we read too much into it.
Hold — 112 call(s)
Hold has been the steadiest tier overall, but we should be careful not to overstate that because it is a broad, mixed bucket. AMAT was the steadiest name here, while TEAM moved the most, showing that even a generally defensive stance can still miss big upside when the stock re-rates hard.
Sell — 57 call(s)
Sell is the strongest tier this run on a meaningful sample, with 57 calls and 66.7% accuracy. BW helped the most, while NLST hurt the most, which captures the range of outcomes: some names fell exactly as the cash-flow caution suggested, while others rerated sharply before the bear case could play out.
Strong Sell — 2 call(s)
Strong Sell looks good on paper, but it is based on only 2 calls, so we should not treat the 100.0% accuracy as a stable pattern. SRG was the better outcome and SMR the weaker one, but the sample is too small to draw a firm conclusion.
Sector Tilt
How the calls we’re actively tracking are distributed across sectors:
| Sector | Long | Short | Hold | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 0 | 20 | 25 | 45 |
| Industrials | 1 | 11 | 18 | 30 |
| Healthcare | 2 | 6 | 9 | 17 |
| Consumer Cyclical | 0 | 3 | 11 | 14 |
| Basic Materials | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 |
| Energy | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 |
| Communication Services | 0 | 4 | 6 | 10 |
| Financial Services | 0 | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| Utilities | 0 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Real Estate | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Unclassified | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Consumer Defensive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
Cumulative Signal Return
Lessons This Week
The main lesson this week is that cash-flow skepticism works best when the market is already losing patience, but it can fail badly when a stock is still in the middle of a rerating on revenue or margin progress. We were right to press on self-funding and valuation in several names, yet NLST and SDGR show that a credible operating step-up can outrun that caution for a while, so we need to be precise about whether we are judging a business on near-term cash conversion or on the market’s willingness to pay for the next leg of growth.
Conclusion
Putting it all together: a $1 long book of every Buy/Strong Buy pick is at $0.94 (-6.3%) across 4 picks; and a $1 short book of every Sell/Strong Sell pick is at $1.04 (+4.0%) across 59 picks.
So far, the short book has outpaced the long book.
This is a running scorecard, not a finished one — both books will keep changing as more picks join and more tracking windows close. We’ll keep restating this comparison every week.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Nothing here is investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell securities. Ratings are tracked for 182 days from publication, then frozen as a permanent record.
Leave a Comment