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 / 296.7K (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.
-30.79%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-30.79%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-31.28%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-21.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-22.22%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
7.78%
Share count expansion well above TRAW's 3.25%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
7.68%
Diluted share count expanding well above TRAW's 3.25%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.39%
Negative OCF growth while TRAW is at 19.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-4.24%
Negative FCF growth while TRAW is at 18.17%. 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.
-7210.53%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
76.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.29%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
70.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 91.81%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
-11609.25%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while TRAW is at 94.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
81.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of TRAW's 99.27%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
70.82%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of TRAW's 83.04%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
881.79%
Equity/share CAGR of 881.79% while TRAW is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-26.92%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-79.64%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-25.21%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-41.29%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-11.75%
We’re deleveraging while TRAW stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
20.45%
We increase R&D while TRAW cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
69.30%
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.