Editor’s note (October 2026): StockVane has grown from a one-person project into a small team since this piece was written. The essay below reflects that earlier, single-person era and is kept as a historical record of how the site operated at the time.
This site has published 90 posts. 40 of them are stock forecasts, covering names pulled from a tracked universe of 300 stocks. There is no newsroom behind that number, and no masthead to go with it. There is one person, writing under my own name, using AI tools to help with drafting and data-pulling under my own direct review before anything goes live. That is the honest answer to “who’s behind StockVane,” and it is also the honest answer to why this careers page has never listed an opening.
If you came here looking for a job posting, there simply isn’t one. Dressing that fact up would be worse than just saying it plainly. I would rather lose the reader who wanted a bigger operation than pretend to be one.
I get why the question keeps coming up. Most finance sites of any size do have a masthead page or a list of contributors somewhere. The absence of that here reads, to a first-time visitor, like an oversight rather than a choice. It is not an oversight. I built the page this way on purpose, because the alternative, implying a team that does not exist, is the kind of small dishonesty that tends to compound into bigger ones once you start.
What “AI-assisted” actually means here
It does not mean a model writes a post and I hit publish. Every piece that goes out starts from real data pulled from the same database that runs the site’s own charts and quote pages, gets drafted with AI assistance, then gets read against the source numbers and edited by me before it goes live. The editorial standards page spells out that process in more detail than I have room for here, and the about page covers how the site itself got built. I link to both because a careers page that hides how the content is actually made would undercut the point of writing an honest one.
The 40-post forecast desk is the clearest example of what that process looks like day to day. A piece like the one on Oracle’s backlog starts with a specific question, in that case whether a reported bookings number was actually showing up in cash flow yet, and gets built around whatever the underlying data says, not around a headline that sounds good. If the data does not support the premise in the title, the piece says so. That is slower than letting a model write end to end, and it is the only version of this I would put my name on.
That same principle applies to the 3 pieces in the About category, this one included. They are the smallest slice of the 90 for a reason: an About-category page only earns its place if it tells a reader something they could not already guess.
What actually gets published, by category
90 is not one type of content stretched thin across a number. It splits into six categories, and the split tells you what this site actually spends its time on.
| Category | Published posts | Share of total |
|---|---|---|
| Forecast | 40 | 44% |
| Guide | 19 | 21% |
| Broker | 13 | 14% |
| Calculator | 8 | 9% |
| Tools | 7 | 8% |
| About | 3 | 3% |
Forecasts are the largest category by a wide margin, 40 against the next-largest category’s 19, more than double. Guides come second, the how-to and explainer pieces that do not depend on a stock price moving to stay useful. Broker and tools content, 13 and 7 posts, covers the platforms and calculators readers actually use to act on the forecasts. About-category pages, this one included, make up the smallest slice at 3, and that is roughly the right proportion for a site’s own internal pages relative to the content readers came for. The scoring-rules analysis tool sits in that small slice too, built on the same idea as this page: hand the reader the actual inputs and let them set the weights, instead of hiding a fixed formula behind a single house score.
What one person can actually verify
There is a practical ceiling to what a single person can check before publishing, and I would rather name it than let a reader assume the site’s standards scale infinitely with its ambitions. Every number in a forecast piece traces back to the same database that runs the quote pages, so a figure like 300 tracked stocks or 90 published posts is not typed from memory, it is pulled and checked at the moment the piece is written. That discipline is what keeps the site honest. It is also exactly the kind of discipline that gets harder to maintain the moment output volume outpaces one careful reviewer’s attention, which is the real argument against growing the byline faster than the workload demands.
Put the two numbers side by side and the ceiling is easier to see. 300 stocks sit in the tracked universe; 90 posts have been published against that universe so far. That gap is not a backlog problem today. It is the buffer that lets one person still check every figure by hand, and it is the number I am actually watching, not the post count on its own.
Why there is no hiring process, and what would change that
I am not going to pretend that a one-person site scales the way a newsroom does. It does not, and I have no intention of inventing a headcount plan to suggest otherwise. Right now, the honest constraint is not ambition. It is that adding a second name to a byline means trusting someone else’s judgment on numbers that go out under this site’s name, and I have not found that the volume of what is worth covering has outgrown what one careful person can fact-check well.
That could change. If the forecast desk keeps growing past 40 pieces and the backlog of stocks worth covering out of the 300-name universe starts outrunning what I can verify properly before publishing, that is the actual signal, not a subscriber count or a revenue milestone I would advertise on a page like this. Coverage quality is the constraint I am watching, not coverage size for its own sake.
There is a real risk on the other side of that decision too, and I would rather state it than skip it. Adding a person before the workload actually requires it would mean either lowering the bar on what gets checked before publishing or slowing the site down to train someone into the same standard, and neither outcome serves a reader who showed up for the forecast on Visa’s toll-road economics or any other single piece. So I am treating “not hiring” as a default rather than a permanent position. I would reverse it only once the workload argument is stronger than the caution argument.
I have thought about the alternative version of this page, the one where I list a couple of contract roles, the kind of freelance help a bigger operation carries quietly, just to look further along than a single byline suggests. I decided against it for the same reason I decided against the team photo. A part-time contractor whose work I still have to check line by line before it goes out is not meaningfully different, from a reader’s perspective, than me writing it myself. The honest version of “growing the team” is not a title on a page. It is someone whose judgment on a number I would trust enough to publish without re-deriving it myself, and I do not think that bar gets cleared by posting an opening and seeing who applies.
If you think you’d be useful anyway
A short note is still worth sending, and I read all of them. Financial writers, developers, and data people who think they would add something to a project like this are welcome to reach out at [email protected]. What I cannot offer is a formal hiring process, or a recruiter reply confirming receipt within some number of business days. What I can offer is that I will actually read the note myself, because there is no inbox layer between a reader and the person running this site.
That last point cuts both ways. It is also why response time is not something I want to promise a number on. Some weeks that means a same-day reply. During a busy stretch of earnings season, when most of my attention is going into the 40 forecast pieces rather than the inbox, it can take longer. I would rather set that expectation honestly than commit to a service-level number I cannot consistently hit.
A useful note, in my experience, is specific. It names the kind of work someone actually wants to do, a sample of writing or code that shows it, and why this particular site rather than a larger publication with an actual hiring pipeline. A note that reads like a template sent to fifty finance sites at once is easy to spot and does not get a longer reply than it deserves. One that shows someone has actually read a few pieces here, noticed how the forecast desk handles a contested number, and has an opinion about it, gets a real answer, even without a role to offer at the end of it.
None of that is a promise of paid work starting on any particular date. It is closer to keeping a short list, informally, of people worth calling first if the backlog argument below ever does tip the other way. That is a smaller thing than a job posting, and I would rather offer the smaller, accurate thing than a bigger one that is not true yet.
The threshold I would need to see before this page changes
Not a follower count, and not a specific dollar figure I am willing to put on a public page. The number that would actually move me is a simpler one: the count of stocks in the 300-name universe that I know deserve a forecast update and have not gotten one, stacking up faster than I can clear it while still checking every figure against the source data myself. That backlog is the real hiring trigger. Until it shows up, this page stays exactly what it says it is, and the note to [email protected] stays the only door that’s open.
Financial disclaimer: The content on StockVane is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional financial advice. Stock market investing involves risk of loss.
Sources: Earnings reports (SEC Investor.gov glossary) (https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/earnings-report) · How to read a company's 10-K (SEC Investor.gov) (https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/10-k)