Advertisement
CLILF vs SHMSF
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 CLILF is a Hold and SHMSF 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).
CLILF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSHMSF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CLILF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- SHMSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CLILF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- CLILF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CLILF (@Real Estate Development) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SHMSF (@Real Estate Development) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was -0.61%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.29%, and the average quarterly price growth was +21.22%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Development (-0.61% 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.
| CLILF | SHMSF | CLILF / SHMSF | |
| Capitalization | 10.5B | 219M | 4,795% |
| EBITDA | 1.25B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -3.081 | -68.020 | 5% |
| P/E Ratio | 27.85 | 7.46 | 374% |
| Revenue | 2.49B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 1.36B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 8.19B | N/A | - |
| CLILF | SHMSF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 63% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 51% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 42% | 3 days ago 15% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 37% | 3 days ago 12% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| SPVU | 55.04 | 0.49 | +0.90% |
| Invesco S&P 500® Enhanced Value ETF | |||
| DIVD | 37.31 | 0.15 | +0.40% |
| Altrius Global Dividend ETF | |||
| AOA | 88.56 | 0.16 | +0.18% |
| iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allc ETF | |||
| DJUL | 46.79 | 0.02 | +0.05% |
| FT Vest US Equity Deep Bffr ETF Jul | |||
| VRTL | 54.47 | -1.03 | -1.86% |
| GraniteShares 2x Long VRT Daily ETF | |||
CLILF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLILF and SWPFF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLILF and SWPFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLILF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLILF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SWPFF - CLILF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SHMSF - CLILF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| OMH - CLILF | -2% Poorly correlated | -2.26% | ||
| VGPBF - CLILF | -6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AWCA - CLILF | -7% Poorly correlated | +38.10% | ||
More | ||||
SHMSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SHMSF has been loosely correlated with EVGPF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 43% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SHMSF jumps, then EVGPF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SHMSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHMSF | 100% | N/A | ||
| EVGPF - SHMSF | 43% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| LRHC - SHMSF | 38% Loosely correlated | -2.57% | ||
| AWCA - SHMSF | 7% Poorly correlated | +38.10% | ||
| CLILF - SHMSF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| VGPBF - SHMSF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||