CNS vs SLFPY
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 CNS is a StrongSell and SLFPY 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).
CNS’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileSLFPY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CNS’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- SLFPY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CNS’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- CNS’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CNS (@Investment Managers) experienced а -1.45% price change this week, while SLFPY (@Investment Managers) price change was +0.36% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +0.71%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.02%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.28%.
Reported Earning Dates
CNS is expected to report earnings on Jan 22, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Managers (+0.71% weekly)Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.
| CNS | SLFPY | CNS / SLFPY | |
| Capitalization | 3.7B | 5.79B | 64% |
| EBITDA | 184M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 36.116 | -15.214 | -237% |
| P/E Ratio | 28.73 | 7.89 | 364% |
| Revenue | 490M | 2.31B | 21% |
| Total Cash | 265M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 140M | N/A | - |
CNS | SLFPY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 77 | 81 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 92 Overvalued | 4 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 28 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 27 | 83 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 40 | 78 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 18 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 75 | 50 |
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.
SLFPY's Valuation (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CNS (92) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that SLFPY’s stock grew significantly faster than CNS’s over the last 12 months.
CNS's Profit vs Risk Rating (28) in the Investment Managers industry is significantly better than the same rating for SLFPY (100) in the null industry. This means that CNS’s stock grew significantly faster than SLFPY’s over the last 12 months.
CNS's SMR Rating (27) in the Investment Managers industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SLFPY (83) in the null industry. This means that CNS’s stock grew somewhat faster than SLFPY’s over the last 12 months.
CNS's Price Growth Rating (40) in the Investment Managers industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SLFPY (78) in the null industry. This means that CNS’s stock grew somewhat faster than SLFPY’s over the last 12 months.
CNS's P/E Growth Rating (18) in the Investment Managers industry is significantly better than the same rating for SLFPY (100) in the null industry. This means that CNS’s stock grew significantly faster than SLFPY’s over the last 12 months.
| CNS | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 76% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 54% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 61% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 54% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 63% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 68% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 6 days ago 64% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 62% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 50% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 65% |
CNS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CNS has been closely correlated with APAM. These tickers have moved in lockstep 70% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if CNS jumps, then APAM could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CNS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNS | 100% | +0.48% | ||
| APAM - CNS | 70% Closely correlated | +1.42% | ||
| BX - CNS | 67% Closely correlated | -0.19% | ||
| BN - CNS | 64% Loosely correlated | +0.33% | ||
| JHG - CNS | 62% Loosely correlated | +2.65% | ||
| VRTS - CNS | 62% Loosely correlated | +1.21% | ||
More | ||||
SLFPY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SLFPY and OWL have been poorly correlated (+27% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SLFPY and OWL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SLFPY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLFPY | 100% | +1.46% | ||
| OWL - SLFPY | 27% Poorly correlated | +1.11% | ||
| BLK - SLFPY | 25% Poorly correlated | +1.56% | ||
| CNS - SLFPY | 24% Poorly correlated | +0.48% | ||
| SLFPF - SLFPY | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LGGNY - SLFPY | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.07% | ||
More | ||||