Your report.
Your name on it.
Half of what it earns.
Free membership for equity analysts. Generate a fresh report every month, steer it toward your own view, and publish it under your own name. You set what it costs to read, and half of every sale is yours. What you also get is a public, dated track record anyone can check.
The best analysis in the world is not written by the best-paid analyst.
It is written by whoever understands that one company best, and for almost every listed company that person does not work at a broker. Two things make this programme possible. The second one matters more.
1 · Tools that remove the grunt work
Twenty-five years of Valuatum's institutional analysis software now sits behind one button. Financials, peer set, segment structure, DCF and multiples arrive already built, for any listed company, in minutes. Anyone competent can produce a reasonable analysis without touching a spreadsheet.
Which means the analysis itself is no longer what distinguishes you. What you do to it is.
2 · Wisdom of crowds, under real competition
For any given company, someone out there knows something the professionals covering it do not: a customer, a competitor's controller, an engineer in the industry, a private investor who has followed it for fifteen years. That expertise is worth nothing until it is exposed to open competition and free copying.
Put every report on the same company side by side, ranked, and let the best one win the readers. We have run it before: the story of the Valuatum freelance network →
What that is worth to you
Half of what your report sells for
You price your own analysis. Every reader who buys it pays that price, and half of it is yours — there is no fixed fee per report to cap what a good one is worth, and no cap on how many of yours can sell. The better your work ranks on a company, the more of that company's readers buy yours instead of somebody else's.
A public track record
Every report you publish is dated, attributed, and stays up. A rating and a target price with a timestamp is something an employer, a client, or a reader can actually verify, unlike a CV bullet.
A shop window
In the old freelance network, six of roughly forty analysts were hired by brokers or corporate finance units within nine months. Published work you can point to is the reason that worked.
Good work is not made to wait
One generation a month is the floor rather than the ceiling. As soon as an administrator or another analyst judges your report good enough, meaning it adds something over the engine's report, you are cleared for the next one without waiting for the calendar to turn.
The free rotation puts you in front of everyone
Roughly every fifth to tenth published report is opened up free to every reader on the site for a period. That is the widest audience your work will get, and it costs the reader nothing to open, so it is read by people who would never have paid to find you.
Demand decides, not a rate card
Because the split is on sales rather than on publication, the person covering a company best is the person paid most for it. Price low to be read widely, price high if your work on that company is worth it — both are yours to choose, and the income tracker in the member area shows what each choice actually earned.
From sign-in to published report.
Seven steps, and you do six of them. The times are rough estimates for someone who has done it before and hits no problems. Your first one will take longer, mostly in step 4.
Who it suits: active investors, finance and accounting students, and professionals who already follow an industry. A controller analysing their own competitors and customers is exactly the profile that worked before. What you need: a LinkedIn account, enough finance knowledge to argue with a valuation, and about an hour a month. No Excel, no modelling, no prior published research.
Steps 6 and 7 — the free rotation, and getting paid — happen after publication and need nothing from you. Below, the same thing written out.
Sign in with LinkedIn
Analyst membership is free and uses LinkedIn sign-in, on the member area. LinkedIn is the identity check: your published analyses carry your real name, so we need to know it is yours.
Membership also gives you ten reports from the catalog every month, once they are at least 30 days old, and twenty of other analysts’ published reports.
Pick a company and start the generation
Enter the company and its ticker in the member area and start your monthly generation. Any listed company we can cover is fair game. Nothing is reserved, and two analysts covering the same company is what we want.
Pick a company you can argue about. The engine handles breadth; you are there for the part where someone has to take a position.
The engine builds the report
The full pipeline runs: financial data, peer comparison, segment structure, DCF and multiples, and the written analysis. This is the same generation a paying customer gets for a fresh report. Nothing about it is a trial version.
You do not have to sit and watch it. Progress shows in the member area and the report appears there when it is done.
Revise it toward your view
Read the draft and prompt the AI to change it. This step is the whole job, and it is what gets judged: a report that clearly adds something over the engine's report is what earns you the next generation without waiting for the month to turn.
You can redirect emphasis, challenge assumptions, swap the peer set, argue for a different valuation method, or tell it which risk it has underweighted. Comments accumulate, so you can keep going until the report says what you actually think.
Here is a real revision, with the comments that drove it →
There is a hard boundary: instructions steer evidence and assumptions, not conclusions. You cannot instruct a rating into existence or overwrite reported financial data. The rating follows arithmetically from the target price, so "make this a SELL" only lands as a change to an assumption upstream, which is the honest way to get there anyway.
Publish
Using the free generation is the commitment. Whatever comes out is published under your name and your LinkedIn profile, whether you revised it heavily or not at all. There is no private draft and no way to generate one and keep it. If you want a report that stays yours, that is the Investor Plus private generation, not this.
Submitting publishes immediately. There is no queue and no waiting for approval. Your report goes into the reports page next to the engine's own report on that company, ranked among the other analysts covering it, under your name and dated. You set its price and how long until it stops costing other members a read.
Your revision prompts are published with it, so readers see both the report and the reasoning you used to steer it. It is also what makes the work yours rather than the machine's.
Your report may be given away, to your benefit
About every fifth to tenth published report is released free to every reader for a while. Free means genuinely free: no purchase, no monthly allowance spent, no account required beyond signing in. Your name and your prompts travel with it.
At the start we pick those by hand from the reports that deserve the audience. Once there are enough of them the draw becomes random, weighted by the scores a report has earned, so a good report is more likely to be the one that goes out and nobody can arrange to be picked.
It is not a tax on your work. An analysis nobody has read earns you nothing and proves nothing; the widest possible readership is exactly what a track record is for.
It starts earning
Publication is instant; payment is not. Every sale of your analysis pays you half of what the reader paid, and each sale is held for 14 days after it happens — that window is both the card refund period and the moderation period. A report taken down inside it earns nothing.
The income tracker in the member area shows each sale: what the reader paid, your half, and whether it is still held, ready to invoice, or already paid.
What a revision that counts actually looks like.
Step 4 is the one you are judged on, and "revise it toward your view" is easy to say and hard to picture. So here is a real one, run through this engine on a Stora Enso report. Read it as a template for the kind of thing worth writing, not as a target to hit.
The engine had discounted the Swedish forest estate by 30.4%, partly because it treated debt allocation, wood-supply contracts and possible tax leakage as risks to the asset's value. The analyst disagreed, in four separate places.
A valuation argument that did not hold
"The company's valuation as a whole — both today and after next year's split into two separate companies — is completely independent of how debt is allocated between the two companies. The total debt is taken from shareholders' pockets in exactly the same way. The current owners will initially own both companies outright, so it makes no difference in which 'pocket' the debt sits."
This is the strongest kind of comment you can write: not a preference, a demonstration that a stated reason does not do what the report claims it does. Nothing here needs data the engine lacked. It needed someone to notice.
A peer set chosen for the wrong reason
"These peers should be genuinely pure investment companies — not forest companies such as SCA or Holmen that have other businesses, because that muddles the valuation of the investment assets. Use companies whose business consists almost entirely of investment assets and the cash flow they generate, where NAV is clearly reported and the share price can be compared with NAV. Nordic companies are preferable."
Note what makes it usable: it says what to replace the peers with and on what test. "The peer set is bad" would have changed nothing.
A number that domain knowledge says is wrong
"'The Swedish estate's annual biological growth is approximately 1%.' I think this is seriously wrong. Sources indicate that biological forest assets grow by roughly 3–5% at the latitude in Sweden where Stora Enso's forests are located. It should be removed, or its source should be disclosed and the report should explain why other sources give different figures."
This is the part no engine gets to on its own, and the reason you are here. The revision did not simply swap the number — it set out a 1.0–4.3% range of published evidence, including the company's own 3.3%, and explained where the 1% figure probably came from.
A comparison that was not comparable
"Why are Metsä Board, Billerud, Smurfit Westrock and Mondi described using different types of figures — percentages for some, tonnes for others, and then EBITDA margins for Smurfit and Mondi? Why not report tonnes, market share or margins on a comparable basis for all of them?"
Small, and worth writing anyway. A reader who cannot line four competitors up in one unit cannot use the table, and you will be the one whose name is on it.
What that did to the report
| Item | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendation | HOLD | BUY |
| Target price | EUR 9.50 | EUR 12.50 |
| Forest discount | 30.4% | 12.5% |
| Forest value in the bridge | EUR 5.92bn | EUR 7.4375bn |
| Forest peer set | SCA and Holmen, mixed with operating-business metrics | Pure NAV reporters: Investor AB, Industrivärden, Lundbergföretagen |
| Biological growth | An unqualified 1% a year | A 1.0–4.3% evidence range, sources given |
| The reports themselves | Original PDF 53 pp · 24 Aug | Revised PDF 59 pp · 25 Aug |
Both are the complete reports as they were produced, not extracts. Every figure in the table above can be checked against them.
Your prompts are published alongside your report, so a reader sees the reasoning as well as the result. That is a large part of what a track record is: not that you said BUY, but that anyone can check why.
Half of every sale, on a price you set yourself.
No rate card, no fixed fee per report, no cap on how much one analysis can earn. What follows is the whole arrangement, including the parts that are not yet finished — and it is written down as the analyst terms, so it cannot quietly change under you: the terms in force at each sale govern that sale.
You price it
At publication you set what your analysis costs and how long until it decays to free, up to a year. A reader without a membership pays your price by card. A member spends one of their monthly reads instead.
We split it in half
Half of what the reader paid is yours. The split is taken on that price, before card fees — Stripe's cut comes out of our half, not yours. Our half pays for the engine run behind your report, the data licences under it and the site that sells it.
Held for 14 days
A card payment can be disputed or charged back for a while after it happens, and moderation happens after publication rather than before it. So your half is held for 14 days from the moment the reader paid — counted in the member area, but not yet yours to bill.
You invoice us
After the 14 days your half is ready to invoice. You send us an invoice from you or your company for that balance and we pay it on a fixed due date; there is a minimum before a payout is worth making, so a small balance waits for the next sale. You are not an employee, there is no employment relationship, and the tax on what you earn is yours to handle.
A takedown voids the sale
If an analysis is taken down, its sales earn nothing and the readers are refunded. Anything already paid to you on it is clawed back against your next invoice. This is the only real gate on publishing, which is why it exists.
Being read still pays, later
When a paying member opens your analysis with one of their monthly reads, you earn a flat €0.50 for that read — not a share of your price, because the member paid us a subscription rather than your price. It is held 14 days like a sale and shows in the income tracker as its own row. Reads by other analysts, and by readers on the free membership, pay nothing. Reads also decide your ranking, which decides who sells.
Ownership, the split, the 14-day hold, invoicing, takedowns and leaving — the whole arrangement on one page. The terms in force at each sale govern that sale.
The ranking is built by the people who had to read the work.
Twenty of other analysts' published reports a month, and every one you open costs you a review. That is what makes the ranking on the reports page worth anything: nobody scores a report they have not read.
One at a time
Opening an analyst report locks the next one until you have rated the one you opened and written why. You cannot work through a queue and review them later. There is one open obligation and it carries until you clear it.
A number and a reason
A rating from 1 to 5, decimals allowed, plus written text. A number on its own tells the analyst nothing. The text is what they learn from, and what an administrator reads when deciding whether to clear your next generation. Your written review is not published under your name — the analyst and we read it; only the scores are public, folded into the ranking.
You score the analyst's contribution
Not the report's polish. The engine wrote most of it, and some engine reports start out better than others. The question is what this analyst's prompting added: which assumption moved, which risk got reweighted, what the reader now knows that the engine's report did not say.
You cannot rate your own
Your own reports are not openable and not rateable by you, and one reader can rate a given report once. Every open is logged with who read whose work, so patterns between accounts are visible to us.
All of them, in one table.
Publishing is instant and unreviewed, so the quality gate sits on the payment side instead. These are the pilot's limits. The allowances are tuned by demand, and an analyst whose work adds value is cleared for the next one rather than held to the number. The money is set out in full above, and the whole arrangement — ownership, payment, takedowns, leaving — is written down in the analyst terms.
| Rule | What it means |
|---|---|
| One generation a month | One fresh report generation per calendar month, and unused months do not roll over. See the next rule though, because the month is not the real limit. |
| A good analysis unlocks the next one | An administrator or another analyst reads what you published. If it adds value, we clear your next generation immediately instead of making you wait out the month. Analysts who produce something worth reading are not the ones we want to slow down. |
| Finish before you start again | No new generation until the previous one is published. The obligation carries across months, so an unpublished report blocks next month's slot too. Every generation costs real engine time, which is why the rule exists. |
| Ten catalog reports a month | Ten self-picked reports from the archive per month, limited to reports at least 30 days old. Newer reports are for paying members. The number is tuned by demand, not carved in stone. |
| You rate the prompting, not the report | The engine wrote most of every analysis on this site, and some base reports are simply better than others through no fault of the analyst. So the score answers one question only: what did this analyst's own work add? Which assumption did they challenge, which risk did they weight differently, what does the reader now know that the base report did not tell them? A polished report that the analyst barely touched is a low score, not a high one. |
| Twenty analyst reports a month | You may open twenty other analysts' published reports per month, one at a time: opening one locks the next until you have rated it and written why. The rating is 1–5 and takes decimals, because the distance between two reports on the same company is rarely a whole point. |
| Your analysis is ranked, per company | Published analyst reports sit on the company's page above the engine's own report, ordered by peer scores, review count and how recent they are. Being first on a company is the thing worth competing for. |
| You set the price and the decay | You choose what your report costs and how long until it decays to free, at most a year. That price is what a reader without a membership pays by card, and what members spend one of their monthly reads on instead. A report also opens to logged-out visitors when we hand-pick it into a free window. |
| The free rotation | Roughly every fifth to tenth published analysis is opened free to all readers for a period, on top of whatever you set. Hand-picked from the good ones at first, later a random draw weighted by the scores an analysis has earned. |
| Not publishing is allowed | Same LinkedIn login, reader account instead: no publish obligation, no public profile, about half the allowance. You can step down at any time, once your current report is published. |
| Publication is the price | The report and your revision prompts are published. Analyst membership has no private option. If you need a report that stays yours, that is a paid plan. |
| Post-moderation | Nothing is reviewed before it goes live. Anything can be taken down after the fact: junk, an unreadable thesis, a prompt chain that is obviously trying to game the ranking. |
| Half of every sale is yours | Each sale of your analysis pays you 50% of what the reader paid, before card fees — those come out of our half. There is no fixed fee per report and no ceiling on what one analysis can earn. |
| Every sale is held for 14 days | Your half becomes billable 14 days after the reader paid, which is the card refund and dispute window and the moderation window at once. Until then the member area shows it as held. |
| A takedown voids the sale | A taken-down analysis earns nothing, its readers are refunded, and anything already paid to you on it is clawed back against your next invoice. |
| Invoice, not payroll | Payable balances are settled against an invoice from you, with a minimum payout threshold so tiny transfers never happen, and a fixed due date. You are not an employee and there is no employment relationship. |
Being ranked on whether you were right.
Not built yet, and deliberately described here as a plan rather than a promise. The direction is settled: a track record is only worth something if it is scored, and a good analyst should not be kept waiting.
Ranking per company
Analysts ranked separately for each company they cover, not on one global leaderboard. Your position on one company says nothing about your position on another.
Accuracy scoring
Your recommendation compared against the realised share-price move, scored monthly and reported as a percentile against every other analysis that month. Recent months weigh more, so a bad month is recoverable.
Coaching analysts
The strongest analysts reviewing others' work for a share of the pot. Moderation would scale with the analyst pool instead of our headcount, and the feedback would tell you how to improve rather than just where you rank.
A pool that stays sharp
The role is not permanent in either direction. Analysts whose work does not add value go back to being ordinary readers; the ones at the top move up into coaching. Both are how the ranking stays worth something.
Start with one company.
Sign in with LinkedIn, pick a company you have an opinion about, and publish it this month.
Questions about the programme? contact26@valuatum.com