One of the first assignments in the QPG Summer 2026 Research Program was deceptively simple:
Read two institutional research reports from Wells Fargo Investment Institute and determine:
Which statements are facts?
Which statements are assumptions?
Which statements are forecasts?
Which statements are investment opinions?
The objective was not to determine whether Wells Fargo was right or wrong.
The objective was to understand how institutional research is constructed.
Our first Quantitative Research Intern, Aarush Kalia, a student at Brown University studying Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, and Economics, spent the first weeks of the program reviewing two major Wells Fargo strategy reports focused on geopolitics, inflation, AI infrastructure, interest rates, and portfolio positioning.
The result was his first formal research deliverable.
Why This Exercise Matters
Most investors read conclusions.
Very few analyze how those conclusions were reached.
Research is ultimately a chain of reasoning.
If the assumptions are weak, the conclusion is weak.
If the assumptions are strong, the conclusion deserves further investigation.
At QPG, we believe analysts should be trained to identify:
Facts
Assumptions
Forecasts
Investment implications
Sources of bias
Missing evidence
before accepting any investment thesis.
This project was designed to develop exactly that skill.
Aarush’s Original Deliverable
Aarush’s initial report identified three major Wells Fargo themes:
1. Higher For Longer Interest Rates
Wells Fargo argues that inflation may remain more persistent than consensus expects and projects year-end 2026 Treasury yields above Wall Street consensus.
2. The Iran Conflict And Global Supply Chains
Wells Fargo believes disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz could continue influencing energy markets, inflation expectations, and global trade even after active conflict subsides.
3. AI Infrastructure Remains A Major Investment Theme
The reports argue that AI-related capital expenditure remains one of the strongest structural investment themes despite regulatory concerns.
The initial memo successfully separated factual claims from assumptions while highlighting areas where institutional incentives, uncertainty, and interpretation may influence conclusions.
For a first institutional research review, the work established a strong analytical foundation.
What Was Missing?
Strong research asks a second set of questions:
How confident should investors be in each thesis?
What evidence would prove the thesis wrong?
What alternative scenarios exist?
Which claims deserve additional verification?
How should portfolios change if the thesis fails?
Those questions became the focus of the next stage of the project.
From Research Summary To Research Framework
Following review, the original memo was expanded into a significantly more comprehensive institutional-style research brief.
The revised version introduces:
Confidence scoring
Bull, base, and bear scenarios
Disconfirming evidence analysis
Portfolio implication matrices
Independent QPG assessments
Follow-on research agendas
Monitoring dashboards
Explicit probability-weighted outcomes
In many ways, the revised report became less about Wells Fargo and more about how investors should evaluate institutional research itself.
Download The Original Internship Deliverable
The original internship submission is available below as a free download.
This version represents Aarush’s first complete research deliverable as a Quantitative Research Intern at AiQuant Research.
[Download the Original Internship Deliverable (PDF)]
Why We Occasionally Publish Both Versions
Research is a process.
A first draft demonstrates understanding.
A revised draft demonstrates judgment.
The ability to improve a thesis after receiving criticism is often more important than the original thesis itself.
That is why we occasionally publish both.
Not because the first version is perfect.
But because the evolution itself is valuable.
CONTINUE READING
Paid subscribers receive:
