About TickerWorth

What this is

TickerWorth publishes intrinsic-value analysis of listed companies: a discounted cash-flow model built from each company's own regulatory filings, blended with relative and asset-based lenses, with every assumption printed beside the number it produced.

Intrinsic value is not a hard idea, but almost everywhere it is sold it arrives as a conclusion — a target, a rating, a star count — and you are asked to trust the output precisely because you can't see the input. This site is the opposite bet: publish the whole model, name the filing behind every reported figure, let any reader move the assumptions and watch the answer move — and when the data is too thin to support a number, publish the refusal instead of the number. A site that regularly says “we don't know” is a strange thing to build. It is also the only version of this that is worth anything.

Independence

TickerWorth sells exactly one thing: a subscription, to its readers. There are no advertisers, no sponsored placements, no payment for order flow, no affiliate links, and no distribution deal with anyone whose stock is valued here.

That is a structural fact, not a slogan. No company covered on this site has a commercial relationship with it, so there is no figure here that anyone can pay to move — and nobody to call to try. The readers are the only people this site has to be right for.

Editorial standards

The rules every page is held to, stated so they can be checked:

• Every figure is checkable. A reported figure carries the filing it was read from; an estimate is labelled as one. A disagreement can be settled against the source rather than against anyone's authority.
• Refusal is a published output. Where the method doesn't fit a business — a cash-flow model is the wrong lens for a bank — the site says so and prints no fair value, instead of a confident number that happens to be meaningless.
• Disagreement is shown, not averaged away. When the valuation lenses conflict, the page prints the range and lowers its stated confidence rather than collapsing the conflict into one tidy figure.
• Nothing is claimed ahead of the evidence. No track record is claimed and none will be invented; the methodology states how one will be measured once there is enough forward time to measure it. A page whose data can't support the read is held out of search rather than published thin.
• Corrections are public. Every revision to the model, its data, or what this site claims about a number lands on the changelog, dated and append-only. A wrong entry is corrected by a new entry, never rewritten.

How the analysis is made

Every valuation on this site is a discounted cash-flow model: what the business is likely to earn, discounted back to what that stream is worth today. Four numbers do the work, and the page shows all four for every company, signed in or not.

• The base year. Where the filing is readable, it comes out of the company's own latest 10-K via SEC XBRL, and the page says so. Where it isn't, it is an estimate and the page says that.
• The forecast. How fast revenue grows and what margin it holds — the two assumptions doing the most work, and the two most worth disagreeing with.
• The discount rate. What return the money has to earn to be worth tying up. Higher means a lower value today.
• The terminal value. What the business is assumed to be worth at the end of the forecast, which for most companies is the majority of the answer.

The published figure is not the raw DCF alone. It is blended with relative and asset-based lenses, because a cash-flow model is one way of looking at a business and not always the right one — and where the models disagree with each other, the page says by how much rather than averaging the disagreement away.

What it can't do

The useful half of any method is the part it gets wrong, so here is that part.

• It doesn't fit every business. Banks, insurers and companies whose cash flows don't yet exist are not valued with a cash-flow model here — they get an available-data view instead, which says plainly that there is no fair value rather than printing one. That is the majority of tickers, not an edge case.
• It understates fast growers. A discounted cash-flow model built on today's numbers is structurally hard on a business compounding quickly. Where that applies, the page steps the model aside, leans on the multiples lenses, and tells you it has done so.
• It is not a forecast. Nothing here predicts a price, a direction or a date. A valuation is an argument about what a business is worth, which the market is free to disagree with for years.
• Coverage is narrower than a large provider's, and the data underneath is free public data with the gaps free public data has. When those gaps make a number untrustworthy, the honest output is a lower confidence rating or no number — both of which this site would rather publish than a confident wrong one.

None of this is investment advice, and none of it is personalised. It is a model, shown in full, so you can decide what you think of it.

If the vocabulary is the barrier

Discount rate, terminal value, free cash flow, margin of safety — the words are the hardest part of valuation and the least interesting. Every term this site uses is defined in plain English, with the reason it matters, in the valuation glossary. Nothing on this site assumes you arrived knowing them.

Ownership and funding

TickerWorth is independently owned and self-funded. It is written, engineered and run by its founder, Miraaj Patel — one person, not a research department — with no outside capital and no financial-industry credential behind the byline. What stands behind the numbers instead is on every page: the model, the filings it reads, and the code that refuses to publish when the two don't add up.

That structure has costs as well as advantages, and they are yours to weigh: coverage is narrower than a large provider's, a data problem is fixed at one person's pace, and no compliance department reads a page before you do. The site is built so that none of it has to be taken on trust — the assumptions are on the page, not summarised into a rating.

Contact

hello@tickerworth.com

Mail to this address is read by the person who builds the model — there is no ticketing layer between a reader and a correction. Corrections come first: if a number here is wrong, that is the most useful mail this site can receive, and because every reported figure carries the filing it came from and every estimate is labelled as one, a disagreement can be settled against the source rather than against anyone's say-so.

Not a channel for personalised investment advice — nobody here is licensed to give it, and it is not given. Data corrections, model arguments, billing, bugs and press: all welcome.

The rest of the argument

• The full method — the same argument as above in detail: every data source, every honesty rule, and the arithmetic itself.
• The valuation glossary — every term, in plain English.
• The free worked example — one company where every paid section is open to everybody, permanently.
• Pricing — what Pro costs, what stays free, and the refund.