Financial research has a structural honesty problem. The dominant model of capital markets commentary — institutional, independent, or digital — has optimized for the appearance of insight rather than its production. Analysis is written after positions are taken, with the confidence that accompanies knowing how the outcome unfolded. Track records are assembled selectively: the winners stay visible, the losses disappear. Views are stated with high conviction and revised without disclosure when they prove wrong.
The result is an industry very good at explaining the past and very poor at being held accountable for the future. Acies Capital was founded to invert this.
The founding premise
The only honest measure of analytical quality is what was written before the price moved. Not what was written after, with the benefit of knowing the direction. Not what was said in conversation, undocumented and unverifiable. What was written, published, and timestamped before any meaningful price movement from the entry level.
A thesis must be documented before the position is taken, and the position must be published before the price moves.
This premise is not modest. It changes the entire structure of how the publication operates. Every paper position is entered before any issue referencing it is drafted. Every thesis is documented against a seven-question standard before an entry level is recorded. Every closed position receives a published post-mortem — including, and especially, the ones that did not work. And this document — the full methodology — is published before the first trade is made. Not after. Before.
The seven-step process
The research process is a defined sequence, not a guideline. No position enters the portfolio without completing every prior step in order.
- Global macro assessment — Fed, ECB, BOE, BOJ, and Banxico posture plus commodity signals produce a primary thesis, the key risk to it, and a map of the most sensitive instruments.
- FX regime classification — the prevailing regime is classified on two axes (USD direction × risk appetite) and published every week.
- Opportunity identification — instruments mispriced versus the dominant thesis, each with a defined repricing catalyst inside the target horizon.
- Thesis documentation — the seven questions, answered in writing, before entry.
- Entry & timestamping — entered at market in the TradingView paper portfolio on the day the thesis completes. The timestamp is immutable.
- Monitoring & exit — reviewed weekly. Exit priority: stop-loss → thesis realized → thesis falsified → 16-week time stop.
- Post-mortem — every closed position is reviewed in print, losses at the same depth as wins.
The seven-question thesis standard
A thesis that cannot answer all seven questions is not yet a thesis — it is macro commentary. Commentary informs the portfolio; only documented theses enter it.
- What is the specific price inefficiency being exploited?
- What is the macro or fundamental driver?
- What conditions would confirm the thesis is correct?
- What would falsify it, and with what probability?
- What are the entry, target, and stop levels?
- What is the expected time horizon?
- What is the specific catalyst that will cause the repricing?
Why this document exists before the record
Any reader who reviews this before Vol. 01 has the full analytical and governance framework before observing a single position or outcome. There is no pre-existing track record to frame the methodology around, no selection of which trades to show first. The framework precedes the record — and that sequencing is the publication's founding statement.
The paper portfolio initiates with Vol. 01, the week of June 9, 2026. Performance will be reported in USD against two benchmarks — the S&P 500 Total Return Index and the USD-adjusted CETES 28-day rate — separately, never blended, in every monthly recap.