Accountability · Updated August 7, 2026
Every valuation we have published — including the ones we got wrong.
We do not claim a performance record, and you should be sceptical of any independent analyst who does. What we can do is publish every valuation we have written, with the date, the price at the time, the fair value we estimated, and where the stock trades now — so you can judge the work for yourself rather than take our word for it.
Of the 3 valuations published to date, 1 is trading above its publication price and 2 are below. That is the honest number.
| Company | Published | Price then | Our fair value | Price now | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP MaterialsNYSE: MP | Dec 2023 | $20.16 | $81.17 | $47.69 | +136.6% |
| Novo NordiskNYSE: NVO / CSE: NOVO-B | Jan 2025 | 317.00 DKK | 617.00 DKK | 293.60 DKK | -7.4% |
| FigmaNYSE: FIG | Nov 2025 | $34.00 | $82.03 | $28.15 | -17.2% |
Prices as of August 7, 2026. “Change” compares the current price with the price on the day we published — it is not a return on any position, since we do not publish entries, exits or position sizes. Novo Nordisk figures are in Danish kroner.
What happened, call by call
A number without an explanation is not transparency. Here is our own assessment of each one, including what the model got wrong.
MP Materials
WorkingDirectionally right and by a wide margin. The stock has more than doubled from the publication price and traded as high as $100.25 in the last twelve months, above our $81.17 estimate. It has since given back a substantial part of that. The thesis — Western rare earth processing as a strategic asset — played out.
Implied from here to our published fair value: +70.2%
Read the original valuation →Novo Nordisk
Against usWrong so far. The base-case 617 DKK estimate assumed continued GLP-1 growth that has not materialised on the timeline we modelled. The article also ran a no-growth "value trap" scenario at 377 DKK; the stock is below that too. Competitive pressure in obesity drugs was underweighted.
Implied from here to our published fair value: +110.1%
Read the original valuation →Figma
Against usWrong so far, and the article disclosed upfront that the author was a heavy Figma user, "very biased", and intended to buy. Revenue growth has held up — 48% year over year in the most recent quarter — but rising AI infrastructure costs have compressed margins, which our model did not adequately price. A case where the disclosed bias and the miss point the same direction.
Disclosed at the time: Author disclosed intent to purchase at time of writing.
Implied from here to our published fair value: +191.4%
Read the original valuation →How to read this page
This is not a performance record. We do not publish entry prices, exit prices or position sizes, and nothing here represents the return of an actual portfolio. It is a record of what we said and when.
A valuation is not a price prediction. A DCF estimates what a business is worth on stated assumptions. Markets can disagree for years, and sometimes the market is right and the model is wrong. Two of the three calls here are currently against us.
Nothing gets deleted. Entries stay on this page permanently, whatever happens. If we abandon a thesis we mark it closed and explain what changed rather than removing it.
Three calls is a small sample. It is not enough to judge a process by, and we would not want you to. It is enough to show that we are willing to be checked.
Our sourcing, disclosure and corrections policies are set out in Editorial Standards. Spotted an error on this page? Tell us and we will correct it.