Why we score growth and value separately

Two very different questions hide inside "is this a good stock." One: is this an exceptional business that can compound for years? Two: how does today's price compare to what the business is worth? They feel like one question. They are not, and quietly blending them wrecks both answers. A famous, beloved stock can sit on top of a mediocre business. A boring company in an ignored corner of the market can be a quiet monster. The moment you let the price color your read of the business, you stop seeing the business.

So we score them on separate tracks. First, the business alone, done as hard as we can: moat, runway, the compounding engine, survivability, the people, the risks. That is the growth read, and we keep it completely free of price, so nothing flatters a weak company or hides a great one. Then, separately, we estimate what the business is worth and compare it to where it trades. That is the value read.

Finally we combine the two into a single opportunity score. A great business that also looks well priced rises to the top; a great business that already looks expensive is flagged as exactly that. Keeping growth and value apart until the very end is what makes each read honest, and what lets the opportunity score actually mean something. Research, not recommendations. Not investment advice.