Five Steps to Systematic Alpha

Most investors have a process. Few have a system.

A process is what you follow when markets are cooperating and your confidence is high. A system is what holds up during drawdowns, regime shifts, and those stretches where nothing in your portfolio seems to be working. The difference between the two is discipline — and discipline is what compounds.

Here's the five-stage framework I use for every equity position. Each stage answers one question, and nothing enters the portfolio without clearing all five.

Stage 1: Screening

The question: What deserves my attention?

There are thousands of investable stocks. Trying to evaluate them all by feel is a recipe for recency bias and narrative-chasing. Screening is how I narrow thousands down to dozens worth a closer look.

I run screens that blend valuation, profitability, and growth signals — looking for companies that are cheap relative to their peers, generating real cash flow, and showing improving fundamentals. The key is comparing apples to apples: an industrial company and a software company shouldn't be judged on the same absolute metrics.

The output isn't a buy list. It's a research list. The screener surfaces interesting names. The next stage decides whether they're actually good.

---

Stage 2: Due Diligence

The question: Is this a business I'd want to own?

Numbers can look great on paper while the underlying business is deteriorating. Due diligence is where I spend the most time, and it comes down to three things:

Who's running it? I look at what management has actually done with the company's capital over time — not what they say on earnings calls. Acquisition track records, insider buying patterns, and capital allocation discipline tell you more than any forward guidance.

What protects it? The best investments have some structural advantage that gets stronger over time — brand loyalty, network effects, high switching costs, or scale that competitors can't easily replicate. If a business doesn't have a clear answer to "why can't someone else do this?", it's probably not durable.

Where is it headed? A company can look healthy today while its best days are behind it. I try to understand whether the business model is gaining or losing leverage — whether each new dollar of revenue is getting easier or harder to earn.

The output is a written thesis: here's why I think this is mispriced, and here's specifically what would make me change my mind.

---

Stage 3: Timing and Risk/Reward

The question: When do I get in, and where am I wrong?

Believing in a business doesn't mean any price is a good price. This stage is about finding entry points where the upside significantly outweighs the downside.

I look at where a stock has historically found buyers (support), where it's run into sellers (resistance), and whether the broader momentum is in my favor. Every potential entry gets a defined exit plan — not because I expect to be wrong, but because knowing where I'm wrong in advance removes emotion from the decision later.

The goal is asymmetry. I want setups where the potential gain is a meaningful multiple of the potential loss, with that loss clearly defined before I commit capital.

---

Stage 4: Stress Testing

The question: What could go wrong — and how bad could it get?

Individual analysis gives you a best guess. Stress testing forces you to think about the full range of outcomes and how your positions interact under pressure.

I model different scenarios — strong markets, weak markets, and outright crises — to understand how the portfolio behaves as a whole, not just position by position. The uncomfortable truth is that diversification often breaks down exactly when you need it most. Stocks that seem uncorrelated in calm markets can start moving in lockstep during selloffs.

The point isn't false precision. Models are always wrong in the details. But going through the exercise forces honest thinking about tail risks instead of just anchoring to the optimistic case.

---

Stage 5: Sizing and Construction

The question: How much do I buy, and how does it fit the portfolio?

Sizing is where most investors leave the most money on the table. A great idea with the wrong allocation is a mediocre outcome.

I balance three things: conviction (higher-confidence positions get more capital, within strict limits), risk (volatile names in concentrated sectors get sized smaller than stable names that add real diversification), and differentiation (the portfolio should look meaningfully different from just buying an index fund — otherwise, why bother?).

Every position has a defined role, a defined risk contribution, and a written reason for being there. Nothing is held by default, and the portfolio gets rebalanced as conditions evolve.

---

The System Is the Edge

None of these five stages is groundbreaking on its own. Screening, research, timing, stress testing, and sizing are all familiar concepts. The edge comes from doing all five — consistently, for every position, without shortcuts.

Markets reward discipline over brilliance. This framework isn't designed to find the next moonshot. It's designed to surface a steady stream of good opportunities, size them well, and let compounding do the heavy lifting. The boring, repeatable process is what produces the interesting results.