thematic-investment-research — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited thematic-investment-research (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Thematic investing identifies structural, long-duration trends reshaping economies and captures value across industries united by common secular drivers. This skill provides an eight-phase methodology from theme identification through portfolio implementation.
Execute phases sequentially, with gate reviews between major phases:
Phase I: Theme Identification & Validation
Phase II: Structural Analysis (TAM, Value Chain, Competition)
Phase III: Universe Construction & Screening
Phase IV: Company Deep Dives
Phase V: Valuation Architecture
Phase VI: Risk Assessment
Phase VII: Report Construction
Phase VIII: Implementation & MonitoringMonitor systematically:
Validate every theme against six criteria before proceeding:
| Criterion | Question |
|---|---|
| Durability | Is this structural (demographics, physics, regulation) or temporary? |
| Relevance | Does it drive revenue growth, margin expansion, or re-rating? |
| Investability | Are there listed equities with genuine, liquid exposure? |
| Verifiability | Can thesis elements be empirically tested with leading indicators? |
| Expansion | Is TAM growing through new use cases or geographies? |
| Rationality | Is opportunity not fully discounted in current valuations? |
Structure: [DRIVER] is causing [STRUCTURAL CHANGE], benefiting [BENEFICIARIES] over [TIME HORIZON], measured by [KEY METRICS].
Gate Review: Obtain approval before committing to full research.
→ For detailed validation frameworks: See references/theme-validation.md
Apply both approaches and triangulate:
Top-Down: Macro data → penetration rates → growth assumptions → industry forecasts Bottom-Up: Customer segments → adoption curves → company validation → reconciliation
For each layer (Upstream → Midstream → Downstream → Adjacent), analyze:
Document: current framework, pending legislation, subsidies/incentives, geographic variance, political durability
→ For detailed frameworks: See references/structural-analysis.md
| Criterion | Pure-Play | Diversified |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Exposure | >75% | >10% |
| Strategic Commitment | High | Moderate |
| Growth Attribution | >50% | >30% |
| Daily Volume | >$5M | >$5M |
Quantitative: Market cap, ADV, revenue CAGR, margins, ROIC, leverage, valuation, momentum Qualitative: Management quality, technology leadership, customer quality, IP strength, ESG, governance
Company ID | Thematic Classification | Fundamental Snapshot | Thematic Thesis | Research Status | Catalysts & Risks
→ For detailed criteria: See references/universe-construction.md
Competitive Moat: Network effects, switching costs, intangibles, cost advantages, efficient scale Management: Track record, incentive alignment, strategic vision, board composition
| Area | Key Metrics |
|---|---|
| Revenue | Segment breakdown, volume/price/mix, recurring %, customer concentration |
| Profitability | Gross margin drivers, operating leverage, R&D intensity, path to profit |
| Cash Flow | OCF conversion, working capital, capex (maintenance vs. growth), FCF margin |
| Balance Sheet | Leverage, liquidity, asset quality, return capacity |
| Scenario | Theme Assumption | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | Accelerates; company gains share | 20-25% |
| Base | Develops as expected; executes to plan | 50-60% |
| Bear | Disappoints/delays; loses position | 20-25% |
| Stress | Theme fails or thesis breaks | 5-10% |
→ For detailed templates: See references/company-analysis.md
| Method | Best For | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| DCF/FCFF | Profitable, visible cash flows | Terminal value sensitivity |
| Reverse DCF | Expectation gap identification | Requires assumed WACC/margins |
| EV/Revenue | High-growth unprofitable | Ignores profitability |
| EV/EBITDA | Profitable comparisons | Capex/D&A differences |
| Sum-of-Parts | Diversified theme exposure | Segment data quality |
| rNPV | Pipeline/binary outcomes | Probability subjectivity |
| LTV/CAC | Subscription models | Requires cohort data |
Revenue: TAM trajectory → SAM → market share → pricing → cross-check Margins: Material costs (learning curves) → pricing power → mix → target vs. mature peers WACC: Beta (historical vs. implied), size premium, country risk, execution premium Terminal Value: Extended forecast (10+ years), conservative perpetual growth, exit multiple cross-check
→ For detailed methodologies: See references/valuation-methods.md
| Risk | Description | Monitoring |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Longer development than anticipated | Adoption curves, milestones |
| Magnitude | TAM overestimated | Market size revisions, unit economics |
| Displacement | Alternative supersedes thesis | Patents, VC activity, breakthroughs |
| Regulatory | Policy undermines economics | Legislation, political shifts |
| Crowding | Consensus; valuations discount gains | Fund flows, ETF assets, multiples |
| Low Impact (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Prob (1) | 1: Monitor | 2: Monitor | 3: Plan |
| Med Prob (2) | 2: Monitor | 4: Plan | 6: Mitigate |
| High Prob (3) | 3: Plan | 6: Mitigate | 9: Critical |
Must be: Specific & measurable, Observable, Pre-committed, Action-triggering
Examples:
→ For detailed frameworks: See references/risk-assessment.md
| Section | Length | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Executive Summary | 1-2 pp | Thesis, findings, recommendations, risks, sizing |
| Theme Deep Dive | 5-10 pp | Drivers, TAM, value chain, competition, regulation |
| Company Profiles | 3-5 pp each | Overview, positioning, financials, valuation, risks |
| Risk Assessment | 2-3 pp | Theme/company risks, thesis killers, mitigants |
| Implementation | 1-2 pp | Portfolio construction, timing, monitoring, exits |
| Appendices | Variable | Models, universe, sources, glossary, disclosures |
→ For detailed templates: See references/report-structure.md
| Conviction | Size | Criteria | Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | 4-6% | Deep dive complete; multiple valuation support; clear catalysts | Monthly |
| Medium | 2-4% | Fundamental work complete; timing/execution uncertainty | Bi-weekly |
| Speculative | 1-2% | High potential but significant risks; option-like payoff | Weekly |
| Watch List | 0% | Interesting but valuation/thesis not compelling | Quarterly |
Adjust for: volatility, correlation, downside scenario survival, portfolio constraints
| Level | Indicators | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Theme | Adoption, pricing, competition, policy, sentiment | Monthly-Quarterly |
| Company | Earnings, KPIs, strategy, positioning, valuation | Post-earnings minimum |
| Type | Trigger | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Target Achieved | Price at target; thesis reflected | Trim 50-100% |
| Thesis Broken | Assumption invalidated; killer triggered | Exit 100% |
| Better Opportunity | Superior risk/reward in theme | Rotate |
| Theme Maturation | Consensus; crowding elevated | Reduce systematically |
| Risk Management | Position exceeds limits | Trim to target |
→ For detailed frameworks: See references/implementation.md
Use checklists in assets/ for standardized execution:
theme-validation-checklist.md: DRIVER framework validationcompany-deep-dive-checklist.md: Fundamental analysis completionrisk-scoring-template.md: Probability/impact assessmentData: Bloomberg, FactSet, Capital IQ, Refinitiv, PitchBook Industry: Gartner, IDC, IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie, IQVIA, BloombergNEF Alternative: Google Trends, SimilarWeb, Glassdoor, Orbital Insight, Thinknum
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.