Headline number: on a representative $10 billion sixteen-stock equity book, our documented ISPS-aware allocation framework (2020–2024) produced on the order of $8.5 billion in excess alpha versus a market-weighted baseline — the same order of magnitude highlighted on the main calculator narrative and in our investment methodology notes.
What the backtest is (and is not)
This is a retrospective, illustrative portfolio exercise: ranked names by ISPS and related durability classifications, then compared realized outcomes over the window. It is not a live-trading record and not a promise of future returns. It is a sanity check that staying-power structure lines up with realized performance in a curated universe that includes both foundations and famous blow-ups.
Mechanism in plain language
- Foundation band (high ISPS): Crisis survival, leadership continuity, and category entrenchment show up in the score; in the sample, these names disproportionately delivered strong 2020–2024 returns.
- Trend-riding / ephemeral band (low ISPS): Peloton-, WeWork-, and similar profiles cluster here; in the sample, these names showed large drawdowns or failure.
The calculator page walks through why markets systematically misprice durability when screens are dominated by momentum and near-term fundamentals — and why crisis-weighted validation is the piece most models skip.
Compliance framing: TVI outputs are analytical tools, not investment advice. Any institutional use belongs in your own diligence, constraints, and regulatory process.
Where to go next
Run single-name ISPS on the TVI platform calculator, read the full corporate rankings on validation, and see investment-oriented wording on applications. For the full quantitative write-up, use the working paper downloads on research / paper.