ABL Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Brighthouse Financial has a net margin of 10.51% compared to Abacus Global Management's net margin of -11.55%. Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84% beat Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57%.

Abacus Global Management has a consensus price target of $13.70, signalling upside risk potential of 151.84%. On the other hand Brighthouse Financial has an analysts' consensus of $60.38 which suggests that it could grow by 12.14%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.915, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 8.474%.

Abacus Global Management has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Brighthouse Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial pays out 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues are $44.1M, which are smaller than Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues of $2.3B. Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M is higher than Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M. Notably, Abacus Global Management's price-to-earnings ratio is 70.19x while Brighthouse Financial's PE ratio is 6.46x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Abacus Global Management is 3.24x versus 0.49x for Brighthouse Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Citizens has a net margin of 10.51% compared to Abacus Global Management's net margin of -2.92%. Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84% beat Citizens's return on equity of 4.28%.

Abacus Global Management has a consensus price target of $13.70, signalling upside risk potential of 151.84%. On the other hand Citizens has an analysts' consensus of $5.00 which suggests that it could grow by 44.09%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Citizens, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Citizens.

Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Citizens has a beta of 0.380, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 61.953%.

Abacus Global Management has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Citizens offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Citizens pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues are $44.1M, which are smaller than Citizens quarterly revenues of $55.7M. Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M is higher than Citizens's net income of -$1.6M. Notably, Abacus Global Management's price-to-earnings ratio is 70.19x while Citizens's PE ratio is 20.41x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Abacus Global Management is 3.24x versus 0.73x for Citizens. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Genworth Financial has a net margin of 10.51% compared to Abacus Global Management's net margin of 3.04%. Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84% beat Genworth Financial's return on equity of 2.3%.

Abacus Global Management has a consensus price target of $13.70, signalling upside risk potential of 151.84%. On the other hand Genworth Financial has an analysts' consensus of $9.00 which suggests that it could grow by 15.24%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Genworth Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Genworth Financial.

Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Genworth Financial has a beta of 1.032, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 3.189%.

Abacus Global Management has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Genworth Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Genworth Financial pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues are $44.1M, which are smaller than Genworth Financial quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M is lower than Genworth Financial's net income of $54M. Notably, Abacus Global Management's price-to-earnings ratio is 70.19x while Genworth Financial's PE ratio is 15.94x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Abacus Global Management is 3.24x versus 0.48x for Genworth Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Lincoln National has a net margin of 10.51% compared to Abacus Global Management's net margin of -15.3%. Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84% beat Lincoln National's return on equity of 16.26%.

Abacus Global Management has a consensus price target of $13.70, signalling upside risk potential of 151.84%. On the other hand Lincoln National has an analysts' consensus of $38.09 which suggests that it could grow by 10.35%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Lincoln National, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Lincoln National.

Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, which suggesting that the stock is 100% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln National has a beta of 1.402, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 40.214%.

Abacus Global Management has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Lincoln National offers a yield of 5.21% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. Abacus Global Management pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National pays out 12.15% of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues are $44.1M, which are smaller than Lincoln National quarterly revenues of $4.7B. Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M is higher than Lincoln National's net income of -$722M. Notably, Abacus Global Management's price-to-earnings ratio is 70.19x while Lincoln National's PE ratio is 4.90x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Abacus Global Management is 3.24x versus 0.32x for Lincoln National. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.