// Methodology
How the models
actually work
Three systematic models, one discipline: fixed rules, run the same way every night. Here's what each model does, what data it uses, where the ideas come from, and what we choose not to disclose.
- The logic of every model, in plain terms
- The inputs each model uses and where they come from
- The academic research the ideas are built on
- Signal history and backtested results, clearly labeled hypothetical
- Exact breadth thresholds and indicator construction
- Momentum lookbacks, weights, and ranking cut-offs
- Score grading thresholds and combination weights
- Optimized parameter values
The approach is transparent. The parameters are proprietary. That's a deliberate line: you can see why a model should work and verify its record, without being handed a recipe that stops working the moment everyone runs it.
03 · Stock Navigator · The signal
Momentum
Stock Navigator ranks the S&P 500 by combining price momentum with two independent, peer-reviewed fundamental screens.
Momentum is one of the most extensively documented anomalies in financial markets: stocks that have performed well over the trailing several months tend to continue outperforming over the following months, while recent laggards tend to keep lagging. The effect was first formally documented by academics Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman in 1993, and has since been replicated across nearly every major equity market and asset class studied.
The likely explanation is behavioral: investors are slow to fully react to new information, causing prices to drift in the direction of the news for longer than a purely efficient market would predict. Whatever the cause, the empirical pattern has persisted for decades.
Stock Navigator uses a momentum score as the primary ranking signal — it determines which stocks make the list and in what order. Fundamentals don't pick candidates; they grade the ones momentum has already surfaced.
04 · Stock Navigator · The quality filter
Piotroski F-Score
Developed by accounting professor Joseph Piotroski in 2000, the F-Score is a 9-point checklist that grades a company's financial statements using only data already in its filings — no forecasts, no opinions. Each of the 9 tests is a simple yes/no question; a company earns one point for each test it passes, for a score from 0 (weak) to 9 (strong).
The tests are grouped into three categories: profitability (is the company actually earning money, and is that earnings quality real cash, not accounting tricks), leverage and liquidity (is the balance sheet getting healthier or more strained), and operating efficiency (are margins and asset use improving).
Piotroski's original research found that high-F-Score stocks significantly outperformed low-F-Score stocks within the same value cohort — the score was built to separate the genuinely improving businesses from the statistically cheap-but-deteriorating ones. Stock Navigator uses it the same way: as a quality check layered on top of the momentum-ranked candidates.
Profitability · 4 pts
- Positive net income
- Positive operating cash flow
- Return on assets improved y/y
- Cash flow exceeds net income
Leverage & Liquidity · 3 pts
- Long-term debt ratio decreased
- Current ratio improved y/y
- No new shares issued
Operating Efficiency · 2 pts
- Gross margin improved y/y
- Asset turnover improved y/y
Weak 4–5
Neutral 6–9
Strong
05 · Stock Navigator · The red-flag filter
Beneish M-Score
Where the F-Score asks "is this company healthy," the M-Score asks a sharper question: "is this company's accounting hiding something." Developed by Messod Beneish in 1999, it's a forensic accounting model built from the financial statement patterns observed in companies that were later caught manipulating earnings.
The model combines eight financial ratios — covering receivables growth, gross margin trends, asset quality, revenue growth, depreciation rates, expense ratios, accruals, and leverage — into a single weighted score. Each ratio captures a different way that aggressive or fraudulent accounting tends to show up in the numbers before it's publicly known.
A resulting score above a calibrated threshold flags a company as statistically likely to be manipulating earnings; below it, the accounting looks clean by historical pattern-matching standards. In Stock Navigator's rankings, this acts purely as a risk screen — it doesn't rank stocks higher, it flags ones worth a second look regardless of how attractive the momentum or F-Score numbers are.
Clean Near
threshold Above threshold
Flagged
06 · Stock Navigator · Putting it together
Three screens, one ranking
Momentum ranks
Every S&P 500 stock is ranked by trailing price momentum. This produces the candidate list — momentum decides who's in the running.
F-Score grades quality
Each candidate gets a 0–9 quality grade from its own financial statements — a check on whether the business is genuinely sound.
M-Score flags risk
Each candidate is also screened for accounting red flags. This doesn't rank stocks up or down — it flags ones worth independent scrutiny.
The result published nightly in Stock Navigator is a momentum-led ranking with both quality grades and manipulation flags shown alongside every name — so you can see not just what's moving, but whether the fundamentals underneath it look sound.
07 · Execution & data
From signal to result
Signal timing. Every model is computed after the close from that day's final data, producing a signal or ranking for the next trading session. Reports are published each trading evening.
Data. Prices, index constituents (point-in-time), and breadth inputs come from Norgate Data. Stock Navigator's fundamental screens are built from company financial filings (SEC EDGAR and Tiingo fundamentals). No figure is entered by hand.
Backtests. Historical results apply each model's rules to past data. They are hypothetical: they were built with hindsight, they do not represent actual trading, and they may not reflect all trading costs, taxes, or slippage. Models can and do have losing periods, and past performance is not indicative of future results.
- Fixed rules — the same calculation every night
- No discretionary overrides, no manual inputs
- Point-in-time index membership, so history isn't flattered by survivors
- Signals and rankings published in full with each report
Further reading
- Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers." Journal of Finance.
- Piotroski, J. (2000). "Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information." Journal of Accounting Research.
- Beneish, M. (1999). "The Detection of Earnings Manipulation." Financial Analysts Journal.
- Moskowitz, T., & Grinblatt, M. (1999). "Do Industries Explain Momentum?" Journal of Finance.
This page describes the logic of each model and the published academic research it draws on. The exact thresholds, weightings, lookbacks, and parameter values used in Street Smart Reports' models are proprietary and are not disclosed. Backtested performance is hypothetical. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Not investment advice.