Great businesses at fair prices — here's why each makes the list.
…and 366 more buy candidates in the full briefing.
40 name(s) sliding toward Avoid:
Value $105,571 ▲ +5.6% since 2026-07-16 · ▼ -$2,402 (-2.2%) since yesterday · S&P +2.2% · Cash $3,897
| Stock | Held | Price | Today | Since buy | Grade |
| CF | 83 sh | $133.35 | ▼ -3.2% | +2.9% | 89 |
| EOG | 78 sh | $145.19 | ▼ -0.5% | +7.8% | 87 |
| FHI | 156 sh | $62.40 | ▲ +0.4% | +4.1% | 92 |
| HIG | 73 sh | $138.37 | ▼ -1.2% | +1.3% | 90 |
| INTU | 33 sh | $332.70 | ▼ -3.4% | +12.9% | 87 |
| LOPE | 69 sh | $152.67 | ▲ +0.1% | +6.6% | 89 |
| LULU | 85 sh | $100.61 | ▼ -17.4% | -15.4% | 87 |
| NBIX | 58 sh | $155.64 | ▼ -1.7% | -9.3% | 89 |
| PRI | 31 sh | $295.62 | ▼ -0.7% | -5.5% | 93 |
| RMD | 49 sh | $228.35 | ▼ -0.4% | +12.6% | 84 |
Fictional money · prices update daily · a live test of whether the picks actually work.
Does the grading actually work? Two honest halves — a backtest on past data, and the real live record as it ripens. It reports the truth even when that's “not enough data yet.”
Reconstructed 318 graded moments across 150 companies (a sample of 150 names), then measured what each actually returned over the next 12 months.
Do higher grades earn better returns?
| Grade | Names | 12-mo return | vs S&P |
| A (80-100) | 45 | +14.9% | +1.5% |
| B (65-79) | 159 | +11.3% | -4.2% |
| C (50-64) | 90 | +12.7% | -1.6% |
| D-F (<50) | 24 | +41.0% | +27.2% |
→ higher grades did WORSE here (gap 26.1 pts) ⚠️
37 snapshot(s) since 2026-07-06, none ripe yet — first 6-month check ~2027-01-06.
Backtest limits: ~5 years back, surviving companies only, restated statements — a strong first read, not gospel. The live record is the hindsight-free gold standard and strengthens every month. Refreshed 2026-09-06. Educational only — not financial advice.
The biggest story among today's Buy names. Lululemon plummeted 17% on Sept 4 after slashing full-year guidance for the fourth time since June. Q2 revenue fell 4% year-over-year to $2.4 billion (missing consensus of $2.46B), and Americas same-store sales dropped 12%. The company now expects full-year revenue of $10.35–$10.5 billion, down sharply from prior guidance of $11.0–$11.15B. Q3 is projected to decline 10–11% year-over-year. Management cited weak product launches, intensifying competition, and negative social media commentary. Even China — previously a growth bright spot — saw same-store sales fall 8%. The stock is down over 51% year-to-date. JPMorgan cut its price target, noting "Lululemon remains a recognizable brand, but it is losing market share." Separately, founder Chip Wilson is reportedly divorcing, adding governance uncertainty, and the company is pulling back on pop-up stores.
This is a real deterioration — revenue declining, guidance slashed repeatedly, and the brand losing share. The grade (87.4) reflects strong historical financials and profitability, but the forward picture is clouding fast. The gap between the high grade and the ugly operational news is worth watching carefully; if the next quarter confirms the trend, the grade will catch up on the downside.
An article from Sept 6 flags that Primerica's investment product boom is masking a shrinking sales force — net income climbed 13% to $202 million in Q2, but the company is losing the independent agents who are its core distribution channel. This is a structural concern: investment product revenue from existing customers can grow even as the pipeline of new customers narrows. The stock is also down 8.8% since its last earnings report, though that article's details couldn't be loaded. Several institutional buys and sells (Ohio pension buying $2.75M, UBS selling ~48k shares) are normal portfolio shuffling and not material signals.
The grade (93.0) is the highest in the focused set and reflects excellent current profitability and financial health. The shrinking-salesforce story is worth monitoring — it's not a crisis today, but it could erode the growth pillar over time if the trend continues.
Deckers gained 1.55% on Sept 4, the same day Lululemon cratered — providing what analysts called "a mixed read on premium brand demand." The divergence is notable: while LULU is losing share, Deckers (HOKA, UGG brands) appears more resilient. No company-specific catalyst or earnings news this week; the remaining headlines were about competitor On Holding (ONON) falling 27% in a month and general market recaps. Quiet news week — the grade reflects strong fundamentals without new concerns.
CF is up 18.1% since its last earnings report, though the article explaining why couldn't be loaded (Yahoo JS shell). An SEC 8-K filing on Sept 3 was blocked by a 403 error so I couldn't confirm its contents — 8-K filings cover material events like executive changes, asset sales, or contract amendments. Separately, CF announced the planned retirement of its Chief Accounting Officer (a Google News headline from Sept 4); this is a normal succession event, not a red flag, though it's worth watching that the replacement is smooth. The grade remains strong.
The most interesting headline is their "APAC tokenization push" — Federated Hermes is expanding into tokenized fund products in Asia-Pacific, potentially a new lever for AUM growth. Unfortunately the full article couldn't be loaded. Brokerages have an average "Moderate Buy" recommendation. No earnings surprises or negative catalysts this week. The grade (92.3) is the second-highest among all focused names, reflecting strong profitability and financial health for this asset manager.
No material news. Headlines are all institutional position changes (Nykredit buying, AlphaGrep investing, Northwestern Mutual buying) and a Simply Wall St. piece calling it a "bargain on earnings." This is typical quiet-week noise for a well-run insurer. The grade is strong at 90.3.
Two headlines worth noting: (1) a Simply Wall St. piece from Sept 1 discusses an "interim CFO appointment amid trading probe" — this sounds like it could be material (a trading probe usually means an SEC or internal investigation into insider trading), but the Google News redirect wouldn't load. (2) An Insider Monkey article calls LOPE "a steady cash-generating business ignored in a speculative market," though that also couldn't be loaded. The institutional buys (AXQ Capital, Legal & General, Manulife) are routine. The trading-probe headline is the one to watch — if it's a formal SEC investigation, that's a real risk even if the grade doesn't capture it yet.
Neurocrine is presenting at investor conferences in September (Boston and New York healthcare events). A Simply Wall St. piece notes the stock "could still be a bargain after a 61% run" — suggesting strong momentum. A director donated 1,000 shares (charitable donation, not a sale — not a warning signal). Brokerages appear positive. No negative catalysts. Clean week.
Near its 52-week high with a "technical breakout setup." Raymond James announced a dividend and new board appointments. Munich Re bought shares. All positive or neutral. No concerns.
A Simply Wall St. analysis suggests KNSL "may be below fair value on strong returns," with an intrinsic value estimate pointing to roughly a one-third discount. However, brokerages have an average "Reduce" recommendation, which creates a conflicting signal — the quant models like it, but sell-side analysts are cautious, likely on valuation multiples. No company-specific catalyst or negative news this week.
Iron Mountain got a fair-value boost from analysts who raised their AI-related growth assumptions — the new estimate is approximately $143–$146 per share. There's also a headline about an "AI lending deal in Saudi Arabia" that could change the investment case. Brokerages average "Moderate Buy." The grade is very low (39.3), which typically reflects weak traditional fundamentals (thin margins, heavy debt for a REIT, rich valuation). The AI data-center story is real but speculative — the grade is saying the stock's price already assumes a lot of that growth will materialize.
Down 15% since last earnings, though the full article couldn't be loaded. No positive catalysts visible — just routine institutional position shuffles. The low grade reflects fundamental weakness in a cyclically challenged appliance maker.
Down 3% since last earnings. An analyst research call from 247 Wall Street mentioned ORA on Sept 4 but the article was truncated before the ORA section. Van ECK sold ~226k shares. No clear catalyst either way — the geothermal energy company has a niche moat but the grade suggests the valuation is stretched relative to the fundamentals.
The most notable item: TXNM raised $400 million in a stock sale (equity offering), per a Stock Titan headline from Sept 2. An SEC 8-K was filed the same day but couldn't be loaded (403 error). A Seeking Alpha article notes the "deal spread might be thin given regulatory presence" — suggesting this may be related to a pending acquisition or merger where regulatory risk is a factor. A $400M equity raise dilutes existing shareholders and is a real event; the purpose of the cash matters (funding a deal vs. shoring up a balance sheet have very different implications). Worth following.
No material company-specific news. Headlines are generic dividend/income roundups ("$860,000 portfolio that pays $5,100/month," "3 landlord stocks," "dividend champions"). The grade is low for a REIT, suggesting the valuation is rich relative to the modest growth and financial profile.
Many Yahoo Finance article pages returned only JavaScript shells with no readable content — this affected detailed articles on PRI, CF, FHI, WHR, ORA, KNSL, NBIX, and DECK. Google News redirect links (news.google.com/rss/articles/...) were not attempted as they typically redirect to the original source's SPA shell, which has the same problem. The SEC 8-K filings for CF and TXNM returned 403 errors. The Street (thestreet.com) also returned 403. The Motley Fool articles loaded successfully and provided the most detailed content (LULU earnings breakdown, DECK context). As always, this is a once-a-morning read of free sources — not a substitute for reading the primary filings or company releases yourself.
MarketMind is a personal, educational stock-research tool. Every morning it screens roughly 900 large- and mid-cap U.S. companies, grades each one from 0–100 on five research-backed pillars — financial health, profitability, growth, valuation, and moat — and surfaces the businesses that look strong and reasonably priced.
The idea it rests on: over the long run, a stock's price follows the company's profits. So rather than chasing hype, MarketMind looks for great businesses at fair prices and lets time do the work.
It also runs a Paper Fund — a fictional $100,000 that automatically follows the tool's own Buy ratings — so you can watch, over time, whether the picks actually work. It's pretend money: nothing here is ever bought or sold for real.
Built with free public data · refreshed every morning at 7:00 AM U.S. Central time.