Our Ratings Explained

Our stock research constitutes journalistic investment recommendations within the meaning of Art. 3(1)(35) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR): editorial assessments of listed companies, addressed to the general public. They are not investment advice — we don't know your personal circumstances (investment goals, risk capacity, time horizon, tax situation) and cannot take them into account. You make every investment decision yourself; investing in stocks carries the risk of losses up to and including total loss.

Every deep dive ends with exactly one rating. The categories mean:

• buy (green light): From an editorial standpoint, our findings don't argue against an entry — documented strengths outweigh, and the valuation appeared defensible to us at the time of the deep dive.
• hold (yellow light): The documented strengths support an existing position, but at the current price level we don't see a sufficient margin of safety for an entry.
• watch (yellow light): A specific question named in the bottom line is open — as long as it isn't answered, we see no basis for an entry.
• caution (red light): We have at least one documented finding that can endanger the company itself (e.g. going-concern doubts, existential dependence on a single counterparty).
• sell (red light): In our view, the documented risks outweigh so clearly that they argue against staying invested.

If both a Detail Analysis and a Deep-Dive Report exist for a company, one shared rating applies — the deeper, more recent analysis is decisive.

The foundation of every deep dive is original sources — above all the annual reports (10-K), quarterly reports (10-Q), current reports (8-K), and insider filings (Form 4) filed with the SEC; for German names, the company's own reports. Figures and quotes are checked against the original documents and linked in the article.

For the verdict, we weigh every negative finding against two questions: What share of the company does it concretely affect (as a percentage of sales, profit, or equity) and what kind of finding is it — existential, a valuation/price risk, or a blemish? Only existential findings can carry a red rating on their own; price risks argue against an entry, but not automatically against an existing position; blemishes are named but don't determine the verdict.

Every rating applies as of the time of the deep dive, which is stated in the article. New information can lead to a re-rating; we apply material re-ratings directly to the article.

Individual authors hold their own positions in companies covered here. Which ones, we disclose in the "Editorial Team's Own Positions" section on this page — additionally, a clearly visible notice sits at the top of every affected deep dive.

We receive no compensation from covered companies or from third parties for producing a deep dive or for its slant; we choose which companies to cover on purely editorial grounds.

On some pages we use labeled partner links (e.g. to brokers). They have no influence on deep dives or ratings.

As of July 10, 2026, the following positions are held by Minnow Street authors in companies with a published deep dive:

• Anterix (ATEX): Stock holding — an author holds shares in this company.
• Dave (DAVE): Stock holding — an author holds shares in this company.
• Roadzen (RDZN): Short position — an author is betting on falling prices here.

A clearly visible transparency notice also appears at the top of every affected deep dive. If a position changes, we update this list.

So you can gauge our standards (Art. 20 MAR): across all 30 currently published deep dives, ratings break down as follows (calculated automatically, as of today):

• buy: 0 (0.0%)
• hold: 7 (23.3%)
• watch: 12 (40.0%)
• caution: 11 (36.7%)
• sell: 0 (0.0%)