Executive Summary
Across 160 articles, our hit rate is 64.3% and our average signal return is 0.71%, so the book is still modestly positive overall. This run, Sell is the strongest tier on a meaningful sample, while Buy is the weakest; Strong Sell looks good too, but it is based on only two calls, so we should treat that result cautiously rather than as a durable pattern.
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: -6.6% on 4 pick(s), $1 each. $4.00 deployed is worth $3.74 today.
- Short book: +1.1% on 52 pick(s), $1 each. $52.00 deployed is worth $52.57 today.
- Combined, long + short (i.e. every pick since we started): +0.6% on 56 pick(s), $1 each. $56.00 deployed is worth $56.31 today.
For comparison, here’s what the same $56.00 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): +4.6%. $56.00 would be worth $58.58 today.
- Nasdaq-100 (QQQ): +4.9%. $56.00 would be worth $58.76 today.
This Week’s Calls
BW — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What happened: We entered at $17.76 and the latest price is $6.17, for a stock return of -65.3%. The signal return is +65.3%, so the short call has worked well so far.
Why: Our original stance leaned on the 2026 debt maturity, negative EBITDA, and negative operating cash flow, and those concerns have not been disproven by the price action. The recovery case still depends on backlog conversion and refinancing, but the stock has moved in the direction our bear case expected.
FLNC — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What we said: We said Fluence still had to prove that its software and installed-base advantage could turn into durable cash generation. Our concern was that revenue growth, backlog, and the 39.0% short interest were not enough if EBITDA stayed negative and levered free cash flow remained deeply negative.
What happened: We entered at $14.42 and the latest price is $7.46, for a stock return of -48.3%. The signal return is +48.3%, so the Sell call has been right so far.
Why: That thesis has held up because the specific issue we flagged was cash conversion, not demand, and the stock has not needed a demand collapse to validate the short case. The company may still have a large pipeline, but the numbers we cited showed a business leaning on financing rather than self-funding growth.
MTZ — Sell (Notable mover — best active signal return)
What happened: We entered at $380.63 and the latest price is $211.95, for a stock return of -44.3%. The signal return is +44.3%, so the Sell call has worked in our favor so far.
Why: Our call was built around weak cash conversion, policy and tariff risk, and the gap between EBITDA and free cash flow, and that caution has been rewarded. The stock’s decline suggests the market has not been willing to pay up for earnings quality that still has not translated into shareholder cash.
NLST — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What we said: We said the stock was pricing in cleaner cash conversion than Netlist had actually delivered. The key tension was that revenue and EBITDA had improved, but operating cash flow was still negative and valuation was already rich.
What happened: We entered at $2.44 and the latest price is $5.62, for a stock return of +130.3%. The signal return is -130.3%, so this Sell call has been wrong so far.
Why: The specific weakness we highlighted was the lack of self-funding cash flow, and that has not been the market’s focus in the near term. Revenue strength and positive EBITDA were enough to overpower our valuation warning, so the thesis has not held up yet.
SDGR — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What we said: We said Schrödinger had a real platform moat, but the valuation was ahead of the cash flow profile. Our concern was that strong gross margin had not yet translated into positive operating cash flow or free cash flow.
What happened: We entered at $17.40 and the latest price is $29.45, for a stock return of +69.3%. The signal return is -69.3%, so the Sell call has been wrong so far.
Why: The moat argument was real, but our timing was off because the market was willing to pay for the platform before cash flow improved. The specific reason for the Sell rating — negative operating cash flow against a rich multiple — has not been enough to stop the stock from rerating.
BMNR — Sell (Notable mover — worst active signal return)
What happened: We entered at $17.74 and the latest price is $28.03, for a stock return of +58.0%. The signal return is -58.0%, so the Sell call has been wrong so far.
Why: Our thesis depended on the recent revenue jump failing to hold and on cash flow confirming the top line, but the market has not waited for that proof. The stock has moved against us because the cash-burn warning has not yet been enough to offset the growth narrative.
How Each Rating Did
Buy — 4 call(s)
Buy is mixed on just four calls, so we should not overread it, even though the average signal return is negative. UAN helped the tier, while CAR hurt it the most.
Hold — 104 call(s)
Hold remains our largest tier and is still doing reasonably well, but the average stock return is slightly negative, so it has been more of a cautious stance than a source of strong upside. WSM was the steadiest name, while TEAM moved the most.
Sell — 50 call(s)
Sell is the clearest positive this run on a meaningful sample, with 50 calls and 64.0% accuracy. BW was the best performer for the tier, while NLST was the biggest drag.
Strong Sell — 2 call(s)
Strong Sell looks good on paper, but it is based on only two calls, so we should treat the 100% accuracy carefully. SRG helped the most, while SMR was the weaker of the two.
Sector Tilt
How the calls we’re actively tracking are distributed across sectors:
| Sector | Long | Short | Hold | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 0 | 16 | 22 | 38 |
| Industrials | 1 | 11 | 16 | 28 |
| Healthcare | 2 | 6 | 9 | 17 |
| Consumer Cyclical | 0 | 3 | 11 | 14 |
| Basic Materials | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 |
| Energy | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| Communication Services | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Financial Services | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Utilities | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Real Estate | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Consumer Defensive | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| Unclassified | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
Cumulative Signal Return
Lessons This Week
This week’s spotlight reinforced a familiar lesson: our bearish calls work best when they are anchored in cash-flow and financing gaps, not just expensive valuation. BW and FLNC both validated that approach, while NLST, SDGR, and BMNR showed the risk of being early when the market is still rewarding growth or a turnaround story before the cash statement catches up.
Conclusion
Putting it all together: a $1 long book of every Buy/Strong Buy pick is at $0.93 (-6.6%) across 4 picks; and a $1 short book of every Sell/Strong Sell pick is at $1.01 (+1.1%) across 52 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