Research Standards
Make the work checkable.
If a reader cannot tell where a fact ends and my judgment begins, I have not done the job. These are the rules I use to keep sources, uncertainty, tradeoffs, and later revisions visible.
- 01
Start with primary material.
Company filings, earnings materials, and direct disclosures are the preferred starting point. Secondary reporting adds context but should not quietly become the factual foundation of a thesis.
- 02
Label inference as inference.
A reported fact, a model assumption, and a personal judgment do different jobs. The writing should make the boundary clear enough for a reader to disagree intelligently.
- 03
Write the countercase before the outcome.
Each position carries a bear case and, where practical, pre-mortem review triggers. A risk is not a boilerplate disclaimer when it can change the decision.
- 04
Disclose the position and the limits.
AEA Capital Research is a personal, educational project—not a fund or investment adviser. Holdings, policy constraints, and methodology limits are stated in the disclosures and Investment Policy Statement.
- 05
Revise without erasing the original reasoning.
When evidence changes a view or exposes a process flaw, the better record is an update or post-mortem, not a silent rewrite. The Research Practice page keeps those revisions visible.
A note on certainty
Research can improve a decision without making it certain. The standard here is not perfect forecasting; it is disciplined reasoning that recognizes tradeoffs and can be inspected, challenged, and revisited later.