Any listed company in the world.
A full report in about thirty minutes.
Valuatum has built equity and credit analysis software for banks, brokers and asset managers since 2000. AI Equity Reports is that same modelling, on demand, for any of the world’s roughly 50,000 listed companies — and steered by your analysts rather than written around them.
Most of an analyst’s week is not analysis.
Pulling the financials, building the model, checking the peer set, laying out the tables — it has to be done, and none of it is where the judgment lives. The engine does that part in about half an hour, for any listed company, from a real financial model rather than a summary of the annual report.
What that buys back is your analysts’ time, and it goes where it is worth more: questioning an assumption, working out what the current price already assumes, making the calls a model cannot make. The same week produces deeper work, because none of it went on wrestling a spreadsheet into shape.
What arrives
A complete PDF: company value map with enterprise value split by segment, reverse valuation showing what the current price already assumes, bear / base / bull scenarios, risks and catalysts, full financial statements and forecasts, a rating and a target price.
What it is built on
Valuatum's own financial models, the same ones behind ProFinder and CreditRisk, which credit institutions, stockbrokers, investment banks and asset managers across Europe have used for two decades. The AI writes the analysis; it does not invent the numbers.
What your analysts do
They argue with it. Every generation carries revision rounds in which your own analyst challenges assumptions, swaps the peer set, adds a channel check the model cannot see, and pushes the report toward the house view. The last word stays with a person.
Six ways institutions actually use this.
Each of these is a real job someone on your team is doing today, by hand, on a deadline.
The base work is already done
Financials, peer set, segment split, DCF and multiples arrive built. Your analyst opens a finished argument instead of an empty spreadsheet, and spends the day on the part that decides the call.
The output is consistent across companies, which matters more than it sounds: comparing two names is only meaningful when both were valued the same way.
The first pass before a meeting
A company calls, a broker pitches, a name jumps on results. You have an afternoon. Generate the report, read the reverse valuation, and walk in knowing what the price already assumes and which assumption has to break for the story to work.
A second opinion your analyst has to answer
Run a report on a company you already cover and compare it with the internal note. Where the two disagree is where the thesis is actually load-bearing, and the model states its assumptions explicitly, so the disagreement is specific rather than a matter of tone.
Training that produces something usable
A junior analyst who has to improve a generated report learns faster than one building a model from an empty sheet, because the argument comes first and the mechanics are already there.
The revision prompts are kept with the report, so you can see what they changed and why.
Your own company, read from outside
Generate the report on your own listed company, and on the peers you are compared with. It shows what a disciplined outside model concludes from public numbers alone — usually the fastest way to find which part of your equity story is not reaching the market.
Background for a client conversation
Structured, dated background on any listed company a client asks about, without pulling an analyst off their book for a day.
Client-facing material, branded output or a wider distribution is a conversation we are happy to have — say so and we will put terms in place.
One generation, then as many rounds of argument as it takes.
The engine builds the report unattended. Everything after that is your analyst reading a draft and telling it what is wrong — the same loop they would run with a junior, except the rework takes minutes.
Stage 3 is where the value is added
The draft is finished work, not a skeleton — it is exactly what a paying customer receives. Your analyst is not filling gaps, they are disagreeing with a complete argument, which is a much faster thing to do well.
Stage 4 takes instructions, not edits
Your analyst writes what should change and why: a different WACC, a peer set that reflects how the company actually competes, a risk the model underweighted, a channel check nobody outside the firm has. The model re-runs with that input and the numbers move with it.
The loop is bounded on purpose
Five rounds per generation. Each one is a full engine run rather than a text rewrite, so the cap is real work rather than a paywall. If you find five is not enough for the way your team works, tell us; the number is set by us and can move.
The reasoning is kept
Every instruction your analyst sent is stored with the report. Six months later, when the call is being reviewed, you can see what the model concluded, what your analyst changed, and on what grounds.
That is the mechanism. Here is one that actually ran, with the comment and both versions of the numbers →
One comment, and a HOLD became a BUY.
This is a real revision from this pipeline, not an illustration. The engine produced a Stora Enso report on 24 August 2026. An analyst read it and wrote down what was wrong with it. The report was regenerated against those objections. Both versions, the comment and the differences between them are kept together, which is why it can be shown at this level of detail.
What the engine produced
24 August 2026A competent report. It valued the Swedish forest estate by discounting the reported fair value, and it was explicit about why:
What the analyst said back
Written in Finnish, rendered here in EnglishFour objections. None of them asks for a different rating; every one of them attacks a piece of evidence or an assumption. That distinction is the whole method.
The discount was priced for risks that cannot happen
“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.”
The same objection covered the supply contracts: Stora Enso already buys wood at market prices from private owners and from its own companies, so an 18-year commitment prices nothing new. And no tax effect is coming.
The peer set was measuring the wrong thing
“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.”
One number looked simply 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.”
The comparisons were 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?”
What the revised report said
25 August 2026The rating was never instructed. It moved because the forest discount fell from 30.4% to 12.5% once the objections were accepted, and the rating follows the target price arithmetically. On the debt point the revised report says the opposite of the original:
Line by line
Every row below is a difference the system recorded between the two versions, not a summary written afterwards.
| Item | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendation | HOLD | BUY |
| Target price | EUR 9.50 | EUR 12.50 |
| Implied upside | −3.3% | +27.3% |
| 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 12.4%, Industrivärden 9% five-year average, Lundbergföretagen 13.5%, with HAL Trust and GBL as wide-discount cases |
| Biological growth | An unqualified 1% a year | A 1.0–4.3% evidence range including Stora Enso's own reported 3.3%; the 1% figure treated as a possible net-growth measure |
| Debt allocation | Listed as a possible value leak | EUR 3.718bn consolidated net debt deducted once; allocation between two initially shareholder-owned entities treated as value-neutral |
| Industrial divisions | Valued on EBITDA | Valued on modelled EBIT |
| Bear / base / bull | EUR 9.31 / 9.51 / 9.97 | EUR 12.43 / 12.54 / 12.87 |
| 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.
Three ways in. Start with the first one.
They are not exclusive, and the first one costs nothing, so there is little reason to start anywhere else.
A limited pilot
Tell us who you are and how much research you do. We agree a number of generations your team can run internally, at no charge and with no card, on companies you choose.
- Full reports, not a demo version
- Revision rounds included
- Internal use, named seats for your team
- No card, no auto-renewal, no obligation
Buy at list price
No agreement needed. A ready report from the catalogue is €20; a freshly generated one on any covered company is €50, delivered in about half an hour.
- €20 ready report, €50 fresh report
- Any listed company, imported on request if new
- API access and volume terms on request
- Client-facing and branded output on request
Put your analysts on the platform
Your analysts publish their reports under their own names, priced by them, with half of every sale paid back. It costs nothing to join and builds a public, dated track record for the people who write it.
- 50 % of every sale to the analyst
- The analyst sets the price
- Free membership, roughly an hour per report
- Published under a real name, dated
Option 3 has a condition worth stating plainly: published means public. If your compliance function cannot let named staff publish research outside the firm, take options 1 and 2 and leave option 3 alone. The analyst terms are written down in full →
Request limited access for your team.
We size the pilot to the organisation, so we need to know a little about yours. Four facts are enough: who you are, where to find you, how much equity research you produce in a year, and how many analysts produce it.
Prefer email? contact26@valuatum.com reaches the same people.
What this does not do.
Worth reading now rather than in week two of a pilot.
Banks and insurers are not what the models are built for
Enterprise value, DCF on free cash flow and EV multiples describe an operating business, not a balance-sheet one. Ask before you build a pilot around financials, and we will tell you honestly what a report on one is worth.
It is not investment advice
The reports are research material. They carry a rating and a target price because a valuation has to conclude something, but nobody at Valuatum knows your mandate, your holding period, or your client. The decision, and the responsibility for it, stays with your analyst.
Data is as good as what is published
The model reads reported financials. It cannot see an unannounced contract, a management change nobody has filed, or what a competitor said to your salespeople last week. That is precisely the part your analysts add in the revision rounds, and the reason the loop exists at all.
Start with the companies you have been meaning to look at.
A pilot costs nothing and tells you more in an afternoon than a call will.
Questions, or a procurement process to get through? contact26@valuatum.com