7 Comments
User's avatar
Rick Sullivan 🦆's avatar

Kevin, this is how you actually do research: less guru-speak, more granular data. Bravo.

Two things jumped out at me:

1 - The FCF yield dominance confirms what we old wolves have known since before Buffett grew the gut. You buy free cash flow rather than dreams.

2 - The finding that capital allocation and financial health were insignificant in the multibagger model? Counterintuitive. But maybe not! When you're small, cheap, and profitable, the runway does the heavy lifting.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

Thank you! I'm going to reach out to the researcher because I have a lot of questions. And the one you mentioned is one of them. In addition, earnings growth is not a significant factor. That's weird.

Expand full comment
Niels's avatar

Great article. Happy I subscribed to you instead of some rather mainstream people that kind of rehash eachothers ideas. Looking forward to the next articles.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

Thanks for the kind comment!

Expand full comment
Manu Invests's avatar

Appreciate the article. Good stuff

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

I appreciate your comment 😉

Expand full comment
Phaetrix's avatar

What jumps out isn’t just the FCF yield signal, but the blind spot it reveals. Investors obsess over revenue growth or story stocks, but the data says the real killers are disciplined reinvestors — companies that keep plowing cash back at high returns on capital. That’s why Monster or Amazon worked: not because they were ‘cheap,’ but because they had the rare combo of hidden optionality + reinvestment runway. Most investors can’t sit through the years it takes for that to show up. That patience gap is where the 100-baggers hide.

Expand full comment