Our Ratings Explained

Our stock research constitutes journalistic investment recommendations within the meaning of Art. 3(1)(35) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR): editorial assessments of listed companies, addressed to the general public. They are not investment advice — we don't know your personal circumstances (investment goals, risk capacity, time horizon, tax situation) and cannot take them into account. You make every investment decision yourself; investing in stocks carries the risk of losses up to and including total loss.

Every deep dive ends with exactly one rating. It judges the quality of the company — not the price and not the entry point. The levels mean:

• Quality confirmed (green light): Business model, numbers and balance sheet hold up to our review — no existential dependence, no break in the books or in governance, and the documented strengths clearly outweigh.
• Open questions (yellow light): The business works in principle, but one material question is open — an unproven turnaround, swinging profitability, or a result that hangs on a single event.
• Substance risk (red light): We have at least one documented finding that endangers the company itself (e.g. going-concern doubts, negative equity, existential dependence on a single counterparty).

Whether a stock is worth buying at its current price is deliberately not what the traffic light answers. That is what the scanners are for: they combine the quality level with valuation, growth and trend metrics. An expensive stock can therefore be green — quality and price are two different questions, and we answer them separately.

If both a Detail Analysis and a Deep-Dive Report exist for a company, one shared rating applies — the deeper, more recent analysis is decisive.

The foundation of every deep dive is original sources — above all the annual reports (10-K), quarterly reports (10-Q), current reports (8-K), and insider filings (Form 4) filed with the SEC; for German names, the company's own reports. Figures and quotes are checked against the original documents and linked in the article.

For the verdict, we weigh every negative finding against two questions: What share of the company does it concretely affect (as a percentage of sales, profit, or equity) and what kind of finding is it — existential, a valuation/price risk, or a blemish? Only existential findings carry a red rating. Valuation and price risks explicitly do not determine the traffic light — they concern the entry point, not the substance of the company, and are named in the text and made visible in the scanner metrics. Blemishes are named but don't determine the verdict.

Every rating applies as of the time of the deep dive, which is stated in the article. New information can lead to a re-rating; we apply material re-ratings directly to the article.

Individual authors hold their own positions in companies covered here. Which ones, we disclose in the "Editorial Team's Own Positions" section on this page — additionally, a clearly visible notice sits at the top of every affected deep dive.

We receive no compensation from covered companies or from third parties for producing a deep dive or for its slant; we choose which companies to cover on purely editorial grounds.

On some pages we use labeled partner links (e.g. to brokers). They have no influence on deep dives or ratings.

As of July 29, 2026, the following positions are held by TickerGuard authors in companies with a published deep dive:

• BuzzFeed Inc (BZFD): Short position — an author is betting on falling prices here.
• Citi Trends Inc (CTRN): Stock holding — an author holds shares in this company.
• Dave Inc (DAVE): Stock holding — an author holds shares in this company.
• Friedman Industries Inc. (FRD): Stock holding — an author holds shares in this company.
• Roadzen Inc. (RDZN): Short position — an author is betting on falling prices here.

A clearly visible transparency notice also appears at the top of every affected deep dive. If a position changes, we update this list.

So you can gauge our standards (Art. 20 MAR): across all 444 currently published deep dives, ratings break down as follows (calculated automatically, as of today):

• Quality confirmed: 32 (7.2%)
• Open questions: 323 (72.7%)
• Substance risk: 89 (20.0%)