Start free
About

Michael built the screen.
The engine runs it.

Large institutions have teams of analysts, proprietary data feeds, and nine-figure research budgets.

Independent investors have Google and gut instinct.

Ticker Mavericks exists to close that gap — 8-section memos, four-pillar scoring, and an auditable record, without the fees, the gatekeeping, or the four-figure invoice.

The price

The research was never the hard part. The invoice was.

Rigorous research has always existed. It has just been priced for people who can absorb a four-figure invoice without blinking. This is $29 a month — and $0 while we're in beta.

Whole market

Coverage without a floor of analysts.

An automated pipeline screens the whole US market every morning — ground that used to take a room full of people. Removing that room is what lets one desk cover everything, and what lets research like this be priced for an individual instead of an institution.

Show the work

Two records, side by side.

The engine's record, and the curator's. Published together, so you can see which one is earning its keep.

The founder

I built this because the research existed — the access didn't.

Michael Harlan, founder of Ticker Mavericks
Michael HarlanFounder & Chief Investment Officer

I started investing in 2020, which is a bit like learning to drive in a hurricane. Markets fell apart and put themselves back together in the space of a few weeks, and the lesson stuck: the story a stock tells you and the numbers underneath it are two different things, and the gap between them is where the money is.

So I did what everyone does. I read. I subscribed. I paid, and what arrived once a week told me what to think without ever showing me why. And I spent my mornings scanning, and I still went to bed most nights certain something had slipped past me — because it had. There are 2,600 stocks worth reading. There is one of me.

Eventually I stopped trying to read faster and started building instead. I wrote the screening rules. I set the thresholds. I designed the governance, and I revise it continuously. I wasn't trying to beat the institutions at their own game — I was trying to do this work without their budget, so it could reach the rest of us. And then, every morning, I let it publish without me.

I'm its architect. And then I'm its first reader, at the same moment you are.

How the research is made

Nobody screens the flags before you see them.

Every morning, an automated system screens the US equity market, applies a deterministic set of screening rules, scores the survivors on a four-pillar composite, and hands a shortlist to a series of AI agents that produce the flags, memos, and charts. It runs on a fixed schedule and it publishes on completion. No human reviews a flag before it is published — and that is the point. It is what lets one desk cover the whole market, and it is what makes the two records worth comparing at all.

Since first flag measures the engine. Since added measures the human element. We publish both, and the gap between them is the honest measure of what the curation is worth — stated as a number, in public, where it can be wrong.

The conflict, stated plainly

Assume I own what we cover.

I invest my own money, including in individual securities, and I may hold a position in any name we cover. That is a conflict of interest. I don't dress it up as an alignment story — I constrain it, and I tell you it's there.

I can't touch a name from the moment it enters our shortlist until seven trading days after you've read about it — not to buy, not to sell. I can't act ahead of you, and I can't sell into a move our own work caused. I can't hold anything that profits from a company we cover going down: no shorts, no puts, no written calls. And no company has ever paid to appear here.

What I don't do is publish my positions. Not which names, not the direction, not the size, not the dates. So don't read our research as though you know where I stand on any given name — you don't, and you shouldn't assume otherwise.

None of that eliminates the conflict. Assume one exists in everything we publish, and weigh our research accordingly. The full Conflicts of Interest statement is worth two minutes.

What we won't do

Process over prediction. Research over advice.

Ticker Mavericks isn't built on predicting the market. It's built on a disciplined, repeatable process, applied consistently across many high-quality setups. Most beaten-down stocks deserve it — we're built to find the rare exceptions, where the price and the fundamentals disagree.

We won't tell you what to do. Every flag comes with full structured data, balanced bull-and-bear framing, and a clear disclaimer. We show the work — always. No black boxes, no overpromising.

And we'll tell you where it's weak. The screen deliberately hunts out-of-favor, dislocated, often small-cap companies — more volatile, less liquid, quicker to fall. A name usually appears because the market has serious doubts about it. The market is sometimes right.And the agents that write the memos can misread data, or state things that simply aren't so. We'd rather you heard that from us.

So, plainly: Ticker Mavericks is an educational research publication of general circulation. Every subscriber receives the same content. We don't manage money, hold positions on your behalf, connect to your brokerage, or offer advice tailored to your situation. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any security. You are a reader and a subscriber — you are not a client. Do your own due diligence, consider your own financial situation, and consult a licensed advisor before making any investment decision. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

Read it yourself.
Then decide if I'm any good at this.

Free during beta. No credit card. Both records are published either way.

Start the free beta →