BAM vs PGPHF
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 BAM is a Hold and PGPHF 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).
BAM’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePGPHF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- BAM’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- PGPHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
BAM’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while PGPHF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- BAM’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
- PGPHF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
BAM (@Investment Managers) experienced а -8.92% price change this week, while PGPHF (@Investment Managers) price change was -4.04% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was -2.56%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.42%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.07%.
Reported Earning Dates
BAM is expected to report earnings on Feb 08, 2023.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Managers (-2.56% 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.
| BAM | PGPHF | BAM / PGPHF | |
| Capitalization | 16.3B | 29.1B | 56% |
| EBITDA | 522M | 1.57B | 33% |
| Gain YTD | 38.694 | -0.932 | -4,152% |
| P/E Ratio | 37.12 | 25.71 | 144% |
| Revenue | 383M | 2.33B | 16% |
| Total Cash | 9M | 307M | 3% |
| Total Debt | 256M | 1.13B | 23% |
BAM | PGPHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 68 | 23 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 23 Undervalued | 91 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 52 | 17 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 39 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 21 | 32 | |
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.
BAM's Valuation (23) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for PGPHF (91). This means that BAM’s stock grew significantly faster than PGPHF’s over the last 12 months.
BAM's Profit vs Risk Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as PGPHF (50). This means that BAM’s stock grew similarly to PGPHF’s over the last 12 months.
PGPHF's SMR Rating (17) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BAM (52). This means that PGPHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BAM’s over the last 12 months.
BAM's Price Growth Rating (39) in the null industry is in the same range as PGPHF (53). This means that BAM’s stock grew similarly to PGPHF’s over the last 12 months.
BAM's P/E Growth Rating (21) in the null industry is in the same range as PGPHF (32). This means that BAM’s stock grew similarly to PGPHF’s over the last 12 months.
| BAM | PGPHF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 63% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 68% | 2 days ago 70% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 58% | 2 days ago 67% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 59% | 2 days ago 60% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 59% | 2 days ago 60% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 63% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 15 days ago 67% | 24 days ago 64% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 61% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 82% | 2 days ago 66% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 67% | 2 days ago 63% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| INCM | 26.22 | -0.43 | -1.61% |
| Franklin Income Focus ETF | |||
| KLIP | 11.04 | -0.19 | -1.69% |
| KraneShares China InternetAndCovCllStETF | |||
| QSWN | 22.23 | -0.39 | -1.75% |
| Amplify BlackSwan Tech & Treasury ETF | |||
| NULC | 45.45 | -1.23 | -2.64% |
| Nuveen ESG Large-Cap ETF | |||
| BBMC | 96.50 | -4.04 | -4.01% |
| JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Mid Cap Eq ETF | |||
BAM and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BAM has been closely correlated with BN. These tickers have moved in lockstep 80% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if BAM jumps, then BN could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BAM | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAM | 100% | -7.02% | ||
| BN - BAM | 80% Closely correlated | -6.02% | ||
| BX - BAM | 70% Closely correlated | -6.23% | ||
| APAM - BAM | 63% Loosely correlated | -5.70% | ||
| CG - BAM | 62% Loosely correlated | -5.43% | ||
| SEIC - BAM | 61% Loosely correlated | -5.12% | ||
More | ||||
PGPHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PGPHF and BRDG have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PGPHF and BRDG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PGPHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PGPHF | 100% | +0.70% | ||
| BRDG - PGPHF | 31% Poorly correlated | -4.60% | ||
| BLK - PGPHF | 29% Poorly correlated | -2.76% | ||
| BN - PGPHF | 29% Poorly correlated | -6.02% | ||
| BAM - PGPHF | 27% Poorly correlated | -7.02% | ||
| IVZ - PGPHF | 27% Poorly correlated | -5.28% | ||
More | ||||