Non-Commodity Research Framework
Turn widely available analysis into distinctive, decision-useful research
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 90%
This framework differentiates research by starting with an unmet need rather than another routine forecast. The analyst surveys competing work, identifies where it converges into commodity consensus, and searches for neglected evidence or consequences beyond the immediate horizon. Economic analysis is then translated into implications for markets and investor decisions, producing a clear call rather than an evasive catalogue of possibilities. The mechanism is differentiation through relevance: uncommon observations become valuable only when connected to a client’s decisions. Research resources should therefore be directed toward questions that matter to the intended audience. The finished work must be evidence-based, distinctive, and willing to risk being wrong without becoming provocative merely for attention.
Origin
David Rosenberg described the research ethos behind Rosenberg Research after spinning his existing subscription business out of Gluskin Sheff.
Core principles
- 01Connect economic evidence to real financial decisions.
- 02Look beyond consensus conclusions and familiar data.
- 03Accept the risk of being wrong when evidence supports a call.
- 04Direct scarce research capacity toward client-relevant questions.
- 05Make analysis distinctive rather than merely provocative.
How to run it
- 1
Locate the shortage
Identify an important decision area where available research lacks clarity, independence, or depth. Define the audience and the decisions the research should improve.
Pro tip Interview readers or clients to discover where existing analysis leaves them uncertain.
Watch out Do not assume an information gap exists merely because competitors reach conclusions you dislike.
- 2
Map the consensus
Read competing analysis and document its common assumptions, evidence, and conclusions. Look for questions that receive little attention because analysts fear departing from consensus.
Pro tip Separate genuine agreement supported by evidence from repetition driven by career risk.
Watch out Contrarianism alone is not differentiation.
- 3
Look around the bend
Search for emerging forces, second-order effects, and overlooked relationships that could change the accepted outlook. Test whether they have meaningful economic or market consequences.
Pro tip Use historical analogues to challenge assumptions without treating history as an exact forecast.
Watch out Do not elevate a novel observation into a thesis before checking its scale and relevance.
- 4
Connect economics to decisions
Translate the evidence into implications for markets, portfolios, businesses, or policy. Explain the causal chain clearly enough that readers can evaluate it themselves.
Pro tip State what evidence would confirm or invalidate the conclusion.
Watch out A collection of unusual facts is not useful research without a decision-relevant mechanism.
- 5
Make the call
Present a distinct conclusion with calibrated confidence rather than hiding behind every possible outcome. Preserve uncertainty while making the central judgment unmistakable.
Pro tip Distinguish the base case from risks instead of giving all scenarios equal weight.
Watch out Do not manufacture certainty where confidence intervals are genuinely wide.
- 6
Allocate toward relevance
Direct future research initiatives toward the questions most appropriate for the client base. Use feedback and outcomes to refine the agenda without simply chasing popularity.
Pro tip Track which insights changed decisions, not just which pieces attracted attention.
Watch out Reader growth does not prove that the underlying analysis was correct.
In the wild
An independent analyst finds that competitors all describe falling rates as bullish because borrowing becomes cheaper. She adds the neglected price-signal interpretation: persistently low real rates may imply weak expected growth. She tests both channels, identifies the sectors affected differently, and publishes a conditional portfolio conclusion with clear invalidation criteria.
→ Readers receive a distinctive mechanism and actionable implications rather than another consensus rate forecast.
Rosenberg used an existing paid research audience as the foundation for an independent firm. He assembled a macro team, expanded the readership, and directed research initiatives toward questions he considered most relevant to clients while emphasizing differentiated analysis.
→ The firm reportedly grew from almost two thousand subscribers to more than four thousand readers in its opening months.
Common mistakes
Confusing disagreement with insight
Taking the opposite side of consensus is not enough. Differentiation must come from stronger evidence, a neglected mechanism, or a more useful application.
Refusing to make a call
Listing possibilities without identifying a central judgment protects the analyst from embarrassment but gives the reader little decision value.
Optimizing only for novelty
A surprising finding that does not affect the audience’s decisions remains trivia rather than valuable research.
Is it for you?
Best for
Independent analysts, research firms, strategists, and expert-led businesses competing against abundant free information.
Not ideal for
Regulated or operational settings where originality matters less than standardized reporting and strict procedural consistency.
From the transcript
“I've long identified a shortage out there of truly high quality, un biased research and research that takes the economics to the financial markets and…”
“there's so many economists out there that are just too fearful of being wrong to make a call.”
“the most important thing is to make the research a non commodity, to make it unique and to make it differentiated.”
From the episode
David Rosenberg on Emergency Policy Decisions (Podcast)
David Rosenberg