Depth vs. breadth of idea generation is always tricky, but we prefer to execute upon a handful of great ideas rather than volumes of good ones. Sometimes the market makes the decision for us, giving us ideas where there is sudden distaste and forced selling or confusion around secular vs. cyclical. On the long side, we seek companies with under-appreciated structural advantages and fortress balance sheets. The universe is narrowed to areas where we can reasonably project sustainable high ROIC returns and attractive FCF duration yield (FCFDY). Often, the process starts on a top-down basis, hunting for broad secular themes we think will propel certain industries over others, then distilling that to a “winners/losers” construct to identify our best estimate of three-to-five year 15-25% compounders and 2:1 risk/rewards (RRs). We develop "bet mixes” across a “change/chaos” paradigm and spend significant time understanding the management team and their credibility as owner-operators; earnings quality is paramount. We prefer scenarios with “catalysts hiding in plain sight” over low probability/asymmetric upside set-ups. While most stocks have a tight basket of KPIs that drive the story, we recognize that the three that mattered most to investors just 6-9 months ago could be notably less important on the next print. On the short side, we lean on high probability set-ups for earnings revisions and de-ratings stemming from deteriorating business fundamentals. Systemic improvements in industry cost structures are quite rare — narrowing down which companies are over-earning at various stages of their lifecycle also provides fertile ground for short biases. Lastly, we also pursue heavily-concentrated event-driven strategies to increase market neutrality and hedge away beta factors, often through dynamically delta-hedged buy-writes