https://market.trosfy.com/feed.xml 2026-07-10T00:00:00Z https://market.trosfy.com/outlook/2026/07/what-this-site-is/ 2026-07-10T00:00:00Z 2026-07-10T00:00:00Z Trosfy <section class="key-facts"><h2>Key facts</h2><p class="thesis">Publishing the full research pipeline, including its data gaps and automation, produces more trustworthy market research than polished conclusions with hidden methods.</p><ul><li>Two-stage pipeline, momentum discovery then a six-check fundamentals quality gate (as of 2026-07-10)</li><li>Coverage, US and Indonesian equities during exchange sessions (as of 2026-07-10)</li><li>Fundamentals history, capped at about five quarters by public APIs (as of 2026-07-10)</li></ul><p class="asof">Data as of <time datetime="2026-07-10">2026-07-10</time></p></section><p>Most market commentary shows you a conclusion and hides the machine that produced it. This site does the opposite: the machine is the product, and the conclusions come with their uncertainty attached.</p> <h2 id="the-pipeline-in-one-paragraph">The pipeline, in one paragraph</h2> <p>During US and Indonesian exchange sessions, an automated screener watches for momentum breakouts — price clearing a prior level on elevated volume. Each candidate then faces a six-check fundamentals quality gate built on recent quarterly data: revenue growth and its trend, margins and their trend, and earnings surprises. What survives is published daily as a verdict — <strong>BUY</strong> when the gate passes, <strong>WATCH</strong> when the data was insufficient to judge. The complete mechanics live on the <a href="/methodology/">methodology page</a>.</p> <h2 id="why-publish-the-gaps">Why publish the gaps</h2> <p>A quality gate that cannot compute a year-over-year comparison says so. A bank with no gross-margin concept gets a WATCH, not an invented number. Public data APIs cap quarterly history at about five quarters <span class="asof">(as of <time datetime="2026-07-10">2026-07-10</time>)</span>, so some checks only strengthen as history accumulates — and the site says that too. The alternative — filling gaps with plausible numbers — produces content that looks right and cannot withstand scrutiny.</p> <h2 id="what-to-expect-here">What to expect here</h2> <ul><li><strong>Daily verdicts</strong> during market sessions, in the <a href="/verdicts/">verdicts section</a> — each one</li></ul> <p>dated, scored, and traceable to its method.</p> <ul><li><strong>Long-form outlook articles</strong> in the <a href="/outlook/">outlook section</a> — slower, deeper pieces on</li></ul> <p>companies and industries, written with LLM assistance and disclosed as such.</p> <ul><li><strong>No position sizing, ever.</strong> How much to invest depends on circumstances this site cannot</li></ul> <p>know; sizing is never published. Verdicts are research flags, not instructions.</p> <p>If that trade — transparency over polish — sounds useful, the <a href="/feed.xml">Atom feed</a> carries every article in full.</p>