Philip Fisher's 15-point checklist for stocks — Buffett called himself 85% Graham, 15% Fisher. Here's what the 15% does.

Warren Buffett famously described himself as "85% Graham, 15% Fisher." Most retail value investors know the Graham part (margin of safety, defensive criteria) and ignore the Fisher 15%. That's a mistake — the Fisher framework is specifically what found Buffett positions like American Express, Coca-Cola, and Apple long before the wider market recognised the moat.

This post walks through Philip Fisher's 1958 Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits framework, the 15 specific questions he asked, how invest-like applies the modernised version to today's universe, and which stocks currently pass.

The 15 questions, in plain English

Fisher's framework is a 15-point checklist (the "15 things to look for in a common stock"). Heavily summarised:

1. Does the company sell products with enough market potential to grow substantially for years?
2. Does management have determination to develop new products as growth from current products slows?
3. How effective is R&D relative to company size?
4. Does the company have an above-average sales organisation?
5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?
6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?
7. Are labour and personnel relations outstanding?
8. Are executive relations outstanding?
9. Does the company have depth of management?
10. How good are the company's cost analysis and accounting controls?
11. Are there industry-specific aspects that give the company a peculiar advantage?
12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?
13. In the foreseeable future will the company's growth require equity financing that materially dilutes existing shareholders?
14. Does management talk freely about its business when things are going well, but "clam up" when troubles arise?
15. Does the company have a management of unquestionable integrity?

Most of these are qualitative. The framework is harder to mechanise than Graham's defensive screens or Greenblatt's Magic Formula. But the underlying signal — finding businesses with sustained R&D + sales-organisation strength before the moat becomes obvious — is the most-rewarding signal in growth-quality value investing.

How invest-like applies the Fisher framework

We've reduced Fisher's 15 qualitative questions to 5 measurable proxies, each grounded in the underlying questions Fisher actually asked:

Proxy 1: Gross margin ≥ 50% sustained 5+ years

Fisher's question 5 ("worthwhile profit margin") plus question 6 ("maintaining margins"). A gross margin above 50% sustained over 5 years is the cleanest signal of pricing power — meaning customers pay more than the marginal cost of production.

Proxy 2: R&D / revenue ≥ 5% sustained

Fisher's question 3 ("effective R&D relative to size"). Companies in technology + medical devices + specialty chemicals + software typically need 5%+ of revenue going to R&D to maintain their moat. Below that level, the moat erodes over time.

Proxy 3: Revenue CAGR ≥ 10% over 5 years

Fisher's question 1 ("substantial growth for years"). A 10%+ revenue compound is the floor for "Fisher Strong Fit" — below that, the growth-quality math doesn't work.

Proxy 4: Share-count growth ≤ 1% per year

Fisher's question 13 ("equity dilution"). If the share count grows faster than 1% per year (excluding buybacks), shareholders are being materially diluted. This is the cleanest "is management an integrity problem" signal we have without reading the proxy statement.

Proxy 5: Cash flow vs reported earnings — FCF / Net Income > 80%

Fisher's question 10 ("cost analysis and accounting controls"). If reported earnings are materially higher than cash flow, accounting is more aggressive than substance. Combined with question 14 (does management hide bad news), low FCF conversion is a Fisher warning sign.

A stock that passes all 5 proxies is a Fisher Strong Fit. Roughly 80 stocks pass at any given quarter in our quality universe.

Current Fisher Strong-Fit picks (May 2026)

Top 8 stocks that currently pass the modernised Fisher framework:

1. ASML (ASML) — gross margin 50%+, R&D ~15% of revenue, revenue CAGR ~17%, share count clean, FCF conversion 100%+
2. Adobe (ADBE) — gross margin 89%, R&D 19%, revenue CAGR 12%, share count holding, FCF 110%+
3. Intuit (INTU) — gross margin 80%, R&D 23%, revenue CAGR 13%, dilution moderate
4. Microsoft (MSFT) — gross margin 70%, R&D 12%, revenue CAGR 13%, share count down
5. Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) — gross margin 67%, R&D 12%, revenue CAGR 16%
6. NVIDIA (NVDA) — gross margin 76%, R&D 11%, but cyclical risk; partial fit only
7. Synopsys (SNPS) — semiconductor design software duopoly; passes all 5
8. Veeva Systems (VEEV) — life-science SaaS; high quality, smaller scale

The pattern: Fisher Strong Fits in 2026 are dominated by software + medical devices + specialty technology — exactly the modern echo of Fisher's 1958 universe (which was dominated by then-new technology companies like Texas Instruments and Motorola).

How Fisher combines with the other 6 frameworks

A stock that passes Fisher AND 4+ other frameworks is the highest-quality Fisher pick. Currently about 12 stocks meet this stricter bar:

• Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit, ASML, ISRG, Synopsys, plus a handful of healthcare names

These are essentially the modern Munger-Fisher overlap stocks — businesses Buffett's classical framework wouldn't fully accept on valuation, but the quality is so structural that Fisher and Munger both pass them.

For combined view, open /strategies/ and filter on "Fisher Strong + Munger Strong + Smith Strong" for the high-quality compounders cohort.

Why Fisher matters today

Three reasons:

1. Most "growth investors" use the wrong framework. Generic growth screens just rank on EPS growth. Fisher's framework requires quality of growth — R&D-fuelled, margin-stable, low-dilution. That's a much more selective filter.

2. Buffett's evolution toward modern compounders is essentially Fisher. When Buffett bought Apple in 2016, the criteria he applied were closer to Fisher's framework than to Graham's defensive screen. Modern Buffett is more Fisher than 1985 Buffett.

3. The Munger-Fisher overlap is where 2026's wonderful businesses live. Visa, Microsoft, Adobe, ASML — all pass both Fisher and Munger but fail strict Graham. The overlap is the modern value-investing sweet spot.

How to apply Fisher to your own analysis

The honest workflow:

1. Pull current gross margin and 5-year trend → does it sustain above 50%?
2. Pull R&D / revenue ratio → above 5%?
3. Pull 5-year revenue CAGR → above 10%?
4. Pull share count over the last 5 years → growing < 1%/year?
5. Pull FCF / Net Income ratio → above 80%?

If all 5 pass → Fisher Strong Fit. If 3-4 pass → Partial Fit. Below that → Weak Fit, not a Fisher pick.

Or: open the stock on invest-like and let the scorer do it.

Disclosure

Educational tool. Philip Fisher's framework is documented in Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (Fisher, 1958, revised 1996). Our modernised proxy implementation differs from the original 15-question qualitative version — the modern version is harder to game and easier to apply at scale, but it loses some of the qualitative texture Fisher emphasised. Past Fisher-framework verdicts do not predict future returns.

Author: Zaid Ghazal, founder of invest-like, indie SaaS, Kiel, Germany.