Advertisement
RHCO vs SLFPF
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 RHCO is a Hold and SLFPF 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).
RHCO’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSLFPF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- RHCO’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- SLFPF’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.
RHCO’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while SLFPF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- RHCO’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
- SLFPF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
RHCO (@Investment Managers) experienced а +60.77% price change this week, while SLFPF (@Investment Managers) price change was -3.04% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +2.13%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.49%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.30%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Managers (+2.13% 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.
| RHCO | SLFPF | RHCO / SLFPF | |
| Capitalization | N/A | 5.79B | - |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 212.500 | 44.068 | 482% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 7.54 | - |
| Revenue | N/A | 2.31B | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 1.34B | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 707M | - |
RHCO | SLFPF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 83 Overvalued | 11 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 92 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 52 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 42 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 92 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
SLFPF's Valuation (11) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for RHCO (83). This means that SLFPF’s stock grew significantly faster than RHCO’s over the last 12 months.
RHCO's Profit vs Risk Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as SLFPF (100). This means that RHCO’s stock grew similarly to SLFPF’s over the last 12 months.
SLFPF's SMR Rating (52) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RHCO (100). This means that SLFPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than RHCO’s over the last 12 months.
RHCO's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as SLFPF (42). This means that RHCO’s stock grew similarly to SLFPF’s over the last 12 months.
RHCO's P/E Growth Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as SLFPF (100). This means that RHCO’s stock grew similarly to SLFPF’s over the last 12 months.
| RHCO | SLFPF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 58% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 63% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 79% | 4 days ago 63% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 77% | 4 days ago 67% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 76% | 4 days ago 56% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 79% | 4 days ago 58% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 78% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 11 days ago 90% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 72% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 87% | 4 days ago 60% |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| BTA | 9.26 | 0.11 | +1.20% |
| Blackrock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust | |||
| PSFJ | 31.14 | 0.13 | +0.43% |
| Pacer Swan SOS Flex (July) ETF | |||
| JIVE | 69.81 | 0.25 | +0.37% |
| JPMorgan International Value ETF | |||
| SIXZ | 28.48 | 0.07 | +0.23% |
| AllianzIM US Lrg Cp 6M Bfr10 May/Nov ETF | |||
| NEA | 11.01 | 0.01 | +0.09% |
| Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund | |||
RHCO and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RHCO and AJMPF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RHCO and AJMPF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RHCO | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHCO | 100% | +1.63% | ||
| AJMPF - RHCO | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WHF - RHCO | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.11% | ||
| SLFPY - RHCO | 15% Poorly correlated | +7.36% | ||
| SLFPF - RHCO | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RAFI - RHCO | 4% Poorly correlated | +0.31% | ||
More | ||||
SLFPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SLFPF and SLFPY have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SLFPF and SLFPY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SLFPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLFPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SLFPY - SLFPF | 24% Poorly correlated | +7.36% | ||
| HALFF - SLFPF | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.34% | ||
| BENF - SLFPF | 20% Poorly correlated | -4.05% | ||
| STJPF - SLFPF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| QUILF - SLFPF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||