Advertisement
CIIHF vs HAFG
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is CIIHF is a Hold and HAFG is a Hold.
Long-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).
CIIHF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileHAFG’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CIIHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- HAFG’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Short-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.
If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.
CIIHF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while HAFG’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CIIHF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 2 bearish.
- HAFG’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CIIHF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HAFG (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was -3.26% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was -2.06%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +12.75%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.79%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Banks/Brokers (-2.06% weekly)These banks specialize in underwriting (helping companies with debt financing or equity issuances), IPOs, facilitating mergers and other corporate reorganizations and acting as a broker or financial advisor for institutions. They might also trade securities on their own accounts. Investment banks potentially thrive on expanding its network of clients, since that could help them increase profits. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CME Group Inc are some of the largest investment banking companies.
| CIIHF | HAFG | CIIHF / HAFG | |
| Capitalization | 46.1B | 282K | 16,347,518% |
| EBITDA | N/A | -1.93M | - |
| Gain YTD | 13.598 | -16.476 | -83% |
| P/E Ratio | 8.61 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 64.5B | 11.1M | 581,081% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 97.8K | - |
| Total Debt | 201B | 432K | 46,527,778% |
CIIHF | HAFG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 35 Fair valued | 51 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 47 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 12 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 44 | 64 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 10 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | n/a |
Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.
CIIHF's Valuation (35) in the null industry is in the same range as HAFG (51). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew similarly to HAFG’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's Profit vs Risk Rating (47) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HAFG (100). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HAFG’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's SMR Rating (12) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HAFG (98). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew significantly faster than HAFG’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as HAFG (64). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew similarly to HAFG’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HAFG (100). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew significantly faster than HAFG’s over the last 12 months.
| CIIHF | HAFG | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 55% | 3 days ago 55% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 43% | 3 days ago 78% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 75% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 40% | 3 days ago 47% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 28% | 3 days ago 61% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 26% | 3 days ago 64% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 57% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 12% | 3 days ago 69% |
Advertisement
CIIHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CIIHF and GS have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CIIHF and GS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CIIHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIIHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| GS - CIIHF | 25% Poorly correlated | +1.36% | ||
| HAFG - CIIHF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MCO - CIIHF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.03% | ||
| PIPR - CIIHF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.12% | ||
| MS - CIIHF | 21% Poorly correlated | +0.36% | ||
More | ||||
HAFG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HAFG and CIIHF have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HAFG and CIIHF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HAFG | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAFG | 100% | N/A | ||
| CIIHF - HAFG | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TMXXF - HAFG | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DBOEY - HAFG | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.03% | ||
| HEXEY - HAFG | 14% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PHIG - HAFG | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||