PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ATNM)
1.780.01 (-0.56%)
1.75 - 1.81
1.03 - 2.41
122.5K / 297.6K (Avg.)
-1.36 | -1.31
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-50.49%
Negative EBIT growth while TRAW is at 28.20%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.26%
Negative operating income growth while TRAW is at 28.20%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-50.43%
Negative net income growth while TRAW stands at 25.68%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-43.14%
Negative EPS growth while TRAW is at 25.91%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-43.14%
Negative diluted EPS growth while TRAW is at 25.91%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
5.01%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 0.31%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.01%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 0.31%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-30.81%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 12.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-30.34%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 12.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-52488.47%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 63.26%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-16557.44%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW is at 63.26%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-182.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while TRAW stands at 81.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-47013.60%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 59.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-7873.57%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is 59.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-9.65%
Negative 3Y CAGR while TRAW is 67.78%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
20722.38%
Equity/share CAGR of 20722.38% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
5960.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 5960.52% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
359.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x TRAW's 100.53%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.59%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-9.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-49.71%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.16%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
23.98%
We expand SG&A while TRAW cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.