SNOWBALLHARE PLAYBOOK

SnowballHare Graham-Inspired Margin of Safety Score

A repeatable framework for deciding whether a cheap-looking stock deserves further research. It combines balance-sheet resilience, normalized earning power, cash conversion, valuation discount, and bear-case protection.

The six scoring inputs

InputWeightScoring basisMain evidence
Balance-sheet safety25%Net cash, liquidity, debt maturity, and solvencyLatest 10-K / 10-Q
Normalized earnings20%Five-to-ten-year normalized earnings powerEarnings history
Cash conversion15%Free cash flow relative to net incomeCash-flow statement
Valuation discount20%Price compared with conservative intrinsic valueValuation model
Downside protection15%Bear-case value, assets, and balance-sheet supportScenario analysis
Catalyst patience5%Whether value can compound without a forced catalystBusiness evidence

Total score = Σ (factor score from 0–100 × factor weight).

Score each factor only after documenting its evidence and bear-case assumptions. A missing datapoint is not a neutral 50; it is an uncertainty that may justify a lower score or no decision.

Score bands and actions

ScoreBandAction
85–100Research candidateContinue diligence; confirm that price still offers a margin of safety.
70–84WatchlistIdentify the evidence needed to resolve valuation, leverage, or normalization risk.
50–69Value-trap riskDo not treat statistical cheapness as protection.
0–49RejectDownside protection is insufficient for this framework.

A high score is not a Buy rating. It indicates that a candidate merits deeper security analysis. Position size, opportunity cost, portfolio fit, and current price remain separate decisions.

Hard invalidation rules

  • Debt refinancing becomes unavailable or materially more expensive.
  • Free cash flow persistently fails to support reported earnings.
  • The bear case implies dilution, covenant pressure, or permanent impairment.
  • Receivables or inventory cannot support their recorded value.
  • The apparent discount reflects structural decline rather than temporary unpopularity.
  • Governance or related-party behavior prevents minority investors from realizing value.

A hard invalidation overrides the weighted score until new evidence resolves it.

Worked score: hypothetical industrial company

FactorScoreWeightContribution
Balance-sheet safety8025%20.0
Normalized earnings7020%14.0
Cash conversion8515%12.75
Valuation discount7520%15.0
Downside protection6515%9.75
Catalyst patience605%3.0
Total100%74.5

The result is a watchlist, not a purchase. Cash conversion and liquidity are sound, but the 65 downside score shows insufficient protection if the cycle weakens. The next step is to test lower volumes, margins, asset recoverability, and refinancing costs.

Evidence workflow

  1. Read the latest 10-K and 10-Q; map cash, debt, leases, covenants, and maturities.
  2. Build a five-to-ten-year earnings series and replace peak results with normalized assumptions.
  3. Reconcile net income with operating cash flow and maintenance capital expenditure.
  4. Estimate a conservative intrinsic-value range and a separate bear-case value.
  5. Apply haircuts to questionable receivables, inventory, and other assets.
  6. Record the evidence that would invalidate each factor score and set a review date.

Limitations

The model can under-score asset-light compounders and over-score companies whose accounting assets are economically weak. Scores also create false precision when evidence is sparse. It is less suitable for early-stage technology, biotech, negative-book-value companies, and businesses valued primarily through network effects or unrecorded intellectual property.

It does not replace valuation judgment, accounting analysis, governance review, portfolio construction, or consideration of alternatives. Use it as a structured research filter, never as an automated recommendation.