CGSHY vs HLPPY
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 CGSHY is a Sell and HLPPY is a StrongSell.
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).
CGSHY’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileHLPPY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CGSHY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- HLPPY’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.
HLPPY’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- HLPPY’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CGSHY (@Real Estate Development) experienced а -11.86% price change this week, while HLPPY (@Real Estate Development) price change was -7.69% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was +4.20%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +12.57%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.41%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Development (+4.20% weekly)Activities range from the renovation and re-lease of existing buildings to the purchase of raw land and the sale of developed land or parcels to others. Demand for land development business is driven by GDP growth, employment rates, interest rates, and access to/cost of capital. For individual companies in this industry, proper cost estimation and successful bidding play critical roles in their profitability. Large companies could potentially have greater access to capital, while smaller companies can specialize in a specific geographic area or market niche. CBRE Group, VICI Properties Inc and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. are some of the large companies in this industry.
| CGSHY | HLPPY | CGSHY / HLPPY | |
| Capitalization | 3.8B | 6.98B | 54% |
| EBITDA | 5.57B | 6.37B | 87% |
| Gain YTD | -9.384 | -35.803 | 26% |
| P/E Ratio | 12.82 | 11.82 | 108% |
| Revenue | 41.4B | 10.3B | 402% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
HLPPY | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 69 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 81 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 32 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| HLPPY | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 62% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 58% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 71% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 71% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 67% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 62% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 16 days ago 69% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 67% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 61% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 66% |
CGSHY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CGSHY has been loosely correlated with LGFRY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 62% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CGSHY jumps, then LGFRY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CGSHY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGSHY | 100% | N/A | ||
| LGFRY - CGSHY | 62% Loosely correlated | -15.91% | ||
| CAOVY - CGSHY | 49% Loosely correlated | -8.68% | ||
| HLPPY - CGSHY | 49% Loosely correlated | -4.87% | ||
| DUO - CGSHY | 48% Loosely correlated | -24.48% | ||
| BEKE - CGSHY | 41% Loosely correlated | -11.22% | ||
More | ||||
HLPPY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, HLPPY has been closely correlated with LGFRY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 69% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if HLPPY jumps, then LGFRY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HLPPY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLPPY | 100% | -4.87% | ||
| LGFRY - HLPPY | 69% Closely correlated | -15.91% | ||
| SUHJY - HLPPY | 63% Loosely correlated | -0.62% | ||
| CAOVY - HLPPY | 61% Loosely correlated | -8.68% | ||
| HLDCY - HLPPY | 56% Loosely correlated | -0.40% | ||
| BEKE - HLPPY | 50% Loosely correlated | -11.22% | ||
More | ||||