MoatPulse
Research the business, not the noise.
I’m building MoatPulse, a workspace for long-term public-company research.
The problem I’m trying to solve is not simply “where can I find financial data?” It is how to preserve the reasoning behind an investment view as the underlying evidence changes.
My current research process is fragmented across SEC filings, financial-data websites, spreadsheets, bookmarks, and notes. When a new 10-Q arrives, updating the numbers is relatively straightforward. Recovering the context is harder:
Why did I choose a particular assumption?
Which filing section supported it?
Which risks or unanswered questions was I monitoring?
What new evidence would change the original conclusion?
MoatPulse is intended to keep standardized reported financials, source-linked filings, valuation assumptions, risks, questions, and research notes together in one company record.
The product is approaching private beta. The current landing page is here:
Before opening access more broadly, I’d value direct feedback from people who research public companies:
What does your current research workflow look like?
What tends to break when a new filing is published?
Which data or conclusions must remain traceable to the primary source?
What would you need to trust standardized or calculated financial metrics?
Would this be meaningfully better than EDGAR, a spreadsheet, and a notes app—or merely another layer of software?
I’m particularly interested in the workflows of individual investors, independent analysts, and small investment teams. Critical feedback is more useful than encouragement.
3 Comments
The interesting challenge isn't storing research notes—it's preserving the chain of reasoning behind an investment thesis as new evidence arrives. I'd keep validating whether analysts are buying a better database, or a system that prevents losing conviction context when assumptions change. That's a much stronger position.
That’s exactly the distinction I’m trying to validate.
The database is useful, but the real value may be preserving why the thesis existed in the first place, what supported it, and what changed when new evidence arrived.
“Conviction context” is a very good way to describe it. Thanks — this is really helpful.
I'm glad that resonated.
Reading your reply gave me one thought about how conviction context changes once the thesis itself becomes something that evolves over time. I don't think I could explain the reasoning properly in a thread without oversimplifying it.
If you're interested, what's the best email to reach you on?