RMGOF vs SFFFF
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 RMGOF is a Hold and SFFFF 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).
RMGOF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSFFFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- RMGOF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- SFFFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
RMGOF (@Investment Managers) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SFFFF (@Investment Managers) price change was 0.00% 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%.
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.
| RMGOF | SFFFF | RMGOF / SFFFF | |
| Capitalization | 5.12B | 2.94B | 174% |
| EBITDA | 9.41B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 8.155 | -22.614 | -36% |
| P/E Ratio | 6.93 | 8.04 | 86% |
| Revenue | 83.3B | 431M | 19,327% |
| Total Cash | 18.4B | 8.15M | 225,711% |
| Total Debt | 16.3B | 1.06B | 1,542% |
RMGOF | SFFFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 43 | 46 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 32 Undervalued | 87 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 76 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 98 | 89 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 75 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 63 | 11 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 55 | 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.
RMGOF's Valuation (32) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SFFFF (87). This means that RMGOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SFFFF’s over the last 12 months.
RMGOF's Profit vs Risk Rating (76) in the null industry is in the same range as SFFFF (100). This means that RMGOF’s stock grew similarly to SFFFF’s over the last 12 months.
SFFFF's SMR Rating (89) in the null industry is in the same range as RMGOF (98). This means that SFFFF’s stock grew similarly to RMGOF’s over the last 12 months.
RMGOF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as SFFFF (75). This means that RMGOF’s stock grew similarly to SFFFF’s over the last 12 months.
SFFFF's P/E Growth Rating (11) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RMGOF (63). This means that SFFFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than RMGOF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
RMGOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RMGOF and HFAHF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RMGOF and HFAHF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RMGOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMGOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HFAHF - RMGOF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IDKFF - RMGOF | 23% Poorly correlated | -10.39% | ||
| EQS - RMGOF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.59% | ||
| PNXPF - RMGOF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SOLCF - RMGOF | 6% Poorly correlated | -9.15% | ||
More | ||||
SFFFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SFFFF has been loosely correlated with HNNA. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SFFFF jumps, then HNNA could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SFFFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFFFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HNNA - SFFFF | 34% Loosely correlated | +0.07% | ||
| PNXPF - SFFFF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SLFPF - SFFFF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SOLCF - SFFFF | 1% Poorly correlated | -9.15% | ||
| RMGOF - SFFFF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||