I normally keep my valuation work and 30-year rankings separate.

A company can be extremely durable and still be expensive. And something can look cheap without being a business I would want to underwrite for 30 years.

So I thought it would be useful to put the two next to each other.

The universe here is my current Top 10 valuation dislocations plus the 15 companies in the Shadow Ranking. I exclude likely-false dislocations, archived names and companies that are only in my research pipeline/watchlist.

For the 30-year side, A+ is my highest-confidence durability tier. A means elite durability with one meaningful long-term vulnerability. B+ is an exceptional but more focused compounder, while B is a high-quality compounder with a material long-term limitation.

I leave C-tier companies out of the main matrix. They can still be good investments at the right price, but I do not have enough confidence in their 30-year durability to treat them as long-term compounder candidates.

What I leave out

Six companies from the Top 10 + Shadow universe fall into my C tier and therefore do not appear in the matrix:

Adobe — Probable dislocation

Tencent — Strong dislocation

Netflix — Shadow Ranking

Novo Nordisk — Shadow Ranking

ServiceNow — Shadow Ranking

Topicus.com — Shadow Ranking

Tencent is probably the clearest example of why I keep valuation and durability separate.

I still see a Strong valuation dislocation there, but I have much less confidence in what the regulatory and geopolitical environment looks like over 30 years.

Adobe has a similar tension. The valuation is interesting, but I am less confident about the durability of its pricing power and creative-software moat over several decades.

Cheapness does not remove long-term uncertainty.

Where I see the strongest overlap

If I look specifically for companies where the long-term durability case and the current valuation case both look attractive, Intuit and RELX stand out most clearly.

Both are B+ on durability and both currently have a Strong dislocation signal. They are also #1 and #2 in my current valuation-dislocation ranking.

Experian and Meta are the next group. Both are B+ with a Probable dislocation.

S&P Global is interesting in a slightly different way. I have it at A on durability, higher than those four, but only a Probable valuation dislocation.

Microsoft is the opposite case.

It is the only A+ company in the matrix, but I currently see no valuation dislocation.

That is why I do not want one combined score for quality and valuation. Microsoft can be the business I have the most confidence in over 30 years without being the stock I find most mispriced today.

The semiconductor names

This is where I am deliberately more conservative.

NVIDIA, Broadcom and TSMC are all B with a Conditional dislocation. ASML is also B, but I currently see no valuation dislocation.

Their positions today are extremely strong, but 30 years is a long time to extrapolate a technological bottleneck. Technology, geopolitics, capital intensity and customer concentration all widen the range of possible outcomes.

That does not make them weak businesses. It just makes me less comfortable assigning A-level durability over three decades.

What I like about putting the two frameworks together is that the disagreements become obvious.

Intuit and RELX currently look strongest across both dimensions.

Microsoft has my highest durability rating but no current dislocation.

Tencent has a Strong dislocation but falls outside my 30-year compounder set.

I will keep updating the valuation side monthly. The 30-year tiers should move much more slowly.

The full valuation ranking, company assessments, ranking history and methodology are available on michaelhillaert.com