Top Ideas
Names where our conservative model sees a clear gap AND the business quality backs it up.
How this list is builtRead ▾
- Universe: the 1000 largest companies in our coverage across major developed markets (non-US names show their exchange and local currency) with a market capitalization of at least $2B, whose price and valuation have both updated within the last 7 days. Valuations our sanity checks flag as unreliable (cross-currency ADRs, extreme outliers, fair values inconsistent with the live price) are excluded.
- Inclusion criteria (all must hold): margin of safety between +15% and +60% (margin of safety = (fair value − price) ÷ price — we cap at +60% because gaps wider than that are usually data or model artifacts, not bargains), a 0-100 quality score of at least 65, a quality factor z-score above +0.5 (where the quality factor is missing, the overall composite stands in), and an overall factor-composite z-score above 0.3. Where a Piotroski F-Score is available, scores below 5 are excluded; names without one are not penalized for the missing data.
- Momentum filter: names whose momentum factor z-score is at or below -0.3 are excluded — when the market is voting that hard against a statistically cheap name, it is more often a deteriorating business than a bargain. Names without a momentum score are not excluded by this rule. Each card shows its momentum z-score as the “M” chip.
- Conviction marker: Strong setup = margin of safety between +20% and +50%, quality z-score above +1 and positive momentum — the band where the gap, the business quality and the tape all agree. Everything else that qualifies is a Solid setup.
- Value-trap penalty: names down more than 30% over the last twelve months stay in the pool but have their rank score multiplied by 0.7, and their caveat leads with the deterioration warning. A deep discount after a deep fall is often deserved.
- Sector diversification: at most 2 ideas per sector in the top 10. We walk the pool in rank order and skip lower-ranked names from an already-full sector in favor of the next name down; names with no usable sector label share a single capped bucket.
- Ranking:rank score = 0.5 × margin-of-safety percentile + 0.5 × quality z-score percentile, both computed within today's qualifying pool (8 names), then the value-trap penalty above where it applies. Up to 10 (after the sector cap) are shown — if fewer qualify, fewer are shown; the list is never padded. Each card prints its percentiles — and the ×0.7 multiplier when applied — so you can check the arithmetic.
- Update cadence: factor scores and valuations refresh on the daily data sync; this page recomputes at most once an hour.
- Conservative by design: our fair values are deliberately conservative, so a name has to look clearly mispriced to make this page. The risk line on each card states the specific weak spots visible in our data for that name — nothing generic.
- Limitations: fair values are model estimates with substantial error bars, scores are relative to our coverage rather than the whole market, and a high rank is not a prediction of returns. Screening well is a reason to research a company — not a reason to own it.
Margin of safety is about 44% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Its momentum factor scores above the average of the names we cover.
What could go wrong: The shares are down 30% over the last twelve months — the market has been moving away from this name, not toward it.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 36% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Momentum is positive over the last three months (+19.6%).
What could go wrong: No major red flags in our coverage data — verify the story yourself.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 29% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Its momentum factor scores above the average of the names we cover.
What could go wrong: No major red flags in our coverage data — verify the story yourself.
Margin of safety is about 21% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Momentum is positive over the last three months (+3.8%).
What could go wrong: Leverage is elevated (debt around 2.6× shareholder equity), which magnifies any operational stumble.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 27% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Its momentum factor scores above the average of the names we cover.
What could go wrong: Shares are down 2.7% over the last three months — near-term sellers currently have the upper hand.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 26% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Its blended factor score (value, quality, momentum) sits above our coverage average.
What could go wrong: Shares are down 1.7% over the last three months — near-term sellers currently have the upper hand.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 17% on today's price, with a 6/9 financial-strength score. Its momentum factor scores above the average of the names we cover.
What could go wrong: Shares are down 2.5% over the last three months — near-term sellers currently have the upper hand.
Second opinion: Wall Street agrees (Buy).
Margin of safety is about 17% on today's price, with a 5/9 financial-strength score. Momentum is positive over the last three months (+49.4%).
What could go wrong: Energy is a cyclical sector — earnings swing with the economy, and a downturn can erase an apparent discount.
Second opinion: Wall Street is more cautious (Hold) — we're the contrarian here.
Research tool, not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.