HGKGY Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

CLP Holdings has a net margin of -- compared to Power Assets Holdings's net margin of --. Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 7% beat CLP Holdings's return on equity of 10.61%.

Power Assets Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand CLP Holdings has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Power Assets Holdings has higher upside potential than CLP Holdings, analysts believe Power Assets Holdings is more attractive than CLP Holdings.

Power Assets Holdings has a beta of 0.345, which suggesting that the stock is 65.511% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CLP Holdings has a beta of 0.407, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 59.306%.

Power Assets Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.69%. CLP Holdings offers a yield of 4.88% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share. Power Assets Holdings pays 98.22% of its earnings as a dividend. CLP Holdings pays out 65.94% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than CLP Holdings quarterly revenues of --. Power Assets Holdings's net income of -- is lower than CLP Holdings's net income of --. Notably, Power Assets Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.44x while CLP Holdings's PE ratio is 14.15x. 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 Power Assets Holdings is 15.49x versus 1.79x for CLP Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

China Resources Power Holdings has a net margin of -- compared to Power Assets Holdings's net margin of --. Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 7% beat China Resources Power Holdings's return on equity of 13.16%.

Power Assets Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand China Resources Power Holdings has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Power Assets Holdings has higher upside potential than China Resources Power Holdings, analysts believe Power Assets Holdings is more attractive than China Resources Power Holdings.

Power Assets Holdings has a beta of 0.345, which suggesting that the stock is 65.511% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison China Resources Power Holdings has a beta of 0.625, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 37.511%.

Power Assets Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.69%. China Resources Power Holdings offers a yield of 5.93% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.32 per share. Power Assets Holdings pays 98.22% of its earnings as a dividend. China Resources Power Holdings pays out 50.41% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than China Resources Power Holdings quarterly revenues of --. Power Assets Holdings's net income of -- is lower than China Resources Power Holdings's net income of --. Notably, Power Assets Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.44x while China Resources Power Holdings's PE ratio is 6.49x. 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 Power Assets Holdings is 15.49x versus 0.91x for China Resources Power Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Concord New Energy Group has a net margin of -- compared to Power Assets Holdings's net margin of --. Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 7% beat Concord New Energy Group's return on equity of 9.28%.

Power Assets Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Concord New Energy Group has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Power Assets Holdings has higher upside potential than Concord New Energy Group, analysts believe Power Assets Holdings is more attractive than Concord New Energy Group.

Power Assets Holdings has a beta of 0.345, which suggesting that the stock is 65.511% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Concord New Energy Group has a beta of 0.179, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 82.135%.

Power Assets Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.69%. Concord New Energy Group offers a yield of 6.38% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Power Assets Holdings pays 98.22% of its earnings as a dividend. Concord New Energy Group pays out 32.16% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Concord New Energy Group quarterly revenues of --. Power Assets Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Concord New Energy Group's net income of --. Notably, Power Assets Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.44x while Concord New Energy Group's PE ratio is 5.01x. 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 Power Assets Holdings is 15.49x versus 1.65x for Concord New Energy Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Beijing Energy International Holding has a net margin of -- compared to Power Assets Holdings's net margin of --. Power Assets Holdings's return on equity of 7% beat Beijing Energy International Holding's return on equity of --.

Power Assets Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling downside risk potential of --. On the other hand Beijing Energy International Holding has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Power Assets Holdings has higher upside potential than Beijing Energy International Holding, analysts believe Power Assets Holdings is more attractive than Beijing Energy International Holding.

Power Assets Holdings has a beta of 0.345, which suggesting that the stock is 65.511% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Beijing Energy International Holding has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Power Assets Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.69%. Beijing Energy International Holding offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Power Assets Holdings pays 98.22% of its earnings as a dividend. Beijing Energy International Holding pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Power Assets Holdings's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Power Assets Holdings quarterly revenues are --, which are smaller than Beijing Energy International Holding quarterly revenues of --. Power Assets Holdings's net income of -- is lower than Beijing Energy International Holding's net income of --. Notably, Power Assets Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 17.44x while Beijing Energy International Holding's PE ratio is --. 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 Power Assets Holdings is 15.49x versus -- for Beijing Energy International Holding. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.