Methodology — Pillar V of VII
No pick publishes without the argument against it
Every pick on this site carries its bear case: the strongest honest argument that we are wrong, in writing, weighted, published alongside the bull case. If we cannot write a credible one, the pick does not go out. That rule has no exceptions, because the day it gets one is the day it stops working.
What the bear case must contain
A real bear case is not a disclaimer paragraph and it is not a strawman we set up to knock down. It has to pass three tests before a pick moves forward.
First, it must be the strongest honest argument against the pick — the case a smart, motivated short-seller would make, written as if they were in the room. If the best we can do against our own idea is "markets can go down," we have not finished thinking.
Second, it must be specific about failure. What exactly has to happen for the thesis to break? Which numbers would show it first — and in which half-year report? Roughly how much would we expect to lose if it plays out? A bear case that cannot name its own evidence is a mood, not an argument.
Third, it must be weighted. Bull and bear are published side by side with our view of the balance between them — because "here are both sides, good luck" is not research either. We tell you which way we lean and how hard, and the Gladiator Score carries that weighting into a number.
The bear case is written at the same desk that wrote the bull case, and it is graded on strength. A weak bear case does not send a pick forward faster — it sends it back.
Why it matters
Research without an opposing case is advertising. Every human being who has just spent weeks building a bull case is, at that exact moment, the least qualified person alive to spot its flaws — that is not a character defect, it is how conviction works. The bear case requirement is a structural correction for it: the argument against gets written before publication, while it can still stop the pick, rather than after the loss, when it becomes an excuse.
It also changes what you receive. A pick with both cases attached is something you can weigh — you can see what we believe, what would break it, and decide how that sits against your own position. A pick without one is something you can only trust. We would rather be weighed than trusted.
What would change our mind
On this page, the honest answer is: this pillar is the changing-our-mind machinery. The bear case names its tripwires in advance — the specific results, numbers or events that would flip the call — so that changing our mind is a scheduled procedure, not an embarrassing improvisation.
- Every published bear case lists what evidence would confirm it and when that evidence would surface
- When a tripwire trips, the pick is formally re-argued — bull case, bear case, score, all of it
- The update is published, not whispered: a new note with a new score, while the original stays on the record
- If the bear case wins the re-argument, we say so in plain language — "we were wrong" is a complete sentence and we are prepared to use it
What never happens: quietly holding a broken thesis because admitting the break would look bad on the record. The record's job is to look accurate, not good.
Figure V — Weighed, or it doesn't publish.
Both cases go on the scales in writing, and the tilt of the beam — our weighting — is published with them. An empty bear pan does not mean the pick is safe; it means the work is not finished. Illustrative diagram; not a representation of any specific pick.
“Someone has to argue the other side. It may as well be a professional.”
General information only — not personal financial advice. Research is provided to wholesale clients within the meaning of ss 708 and 761G of the Corporations Act.