ABL Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has a net margin of 11.24% compared to Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net margin of 26.49%. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s return on equity of 2.8% beat Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s return on equity of 17.31%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a consensus price target of $13.50, signalling upside risk potential of 54.21%. On the other hand Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $65.50 which suggests that it could grow by 0.99%. Given that Abacus Global Management, Inc. has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, Inc., analysts believe Abacus Global Management, Inc. is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial, Inc..

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a beta of -0.062, which suggesting that the stock is 106.246% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brighthouse Financial, Inc. has a beta of 0.967, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 3.337%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.20 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.37%. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management, Inc. pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. quarterly revenues are $63M, which are smaller than Brighthouse Financial, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net income of $7.1M is lower than Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s net income of $481M. Notably, Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 107.80x while Brighthouse Financial, Inc.'s PE ratio is 4.40x. 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, Inc. is 3.97x versus 0.60x for Brighthouse Financial, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a net margin of 11.24% compared to Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net margin of 3.85%. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s return on equity of 2.8% beat Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s return on equity of 4.99%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a consensus price target of $13.50, signalling upside risk potential of 54.21%. On the other hand Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has an analysts' consensus of $6.00 which suggests that it could grow by 9.49%. Given that Abacus Global Management, Inc. has higher upside potential than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas), analysts believe Abacus Global Management, Inc. is more attractive than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas).

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a beta of -0.062, which suggesting that the stock is 106.246% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) has a beta of 0.364, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 63.618%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.20 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.37%. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management, Inc. pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. quarterly revenues are $63M, which are larger than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas) quarterly revenues of $62.8M. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net income of $7.1M is higher than Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s net income of $2.4M. Notably, Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 107.80x while Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas)'s PE ratio is 23.75x. 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, Inc. is 3.97x versus 1.04x for Citizens, Inc. (Austin, Texas). Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Genworth Financial, Inc. has a net margin of 11.24% compared to Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net margin of 8.47%. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s return on equity of 2.8% beat Genworth Financial, Inc.'s return on equity of 3.86%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a consensus price target of $13.50, signalling upside risk potential of 54.21%. On the other hand Genworth Financial, Inc. has an analysts' consensus of $10.00 which suggests that it could grow by 8.23%. Given that Abacus Global Management, Inc. has higher upside potential than Genworth Financial, Inc., analysts believe Abacus Global Management, Inc. is more attractive than Genworth Financial, Inc..

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a beta of -0.062, which suggesting that the stock is 106.246% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Genworth Financial, Inc. has a beta of 1.018, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 1.829%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.20 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.37%. Genworth Financial, Inc. offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Abacus Global Management, Inc. pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Genworth Financial, Inc. pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. quarterly revenues are $63M, which are smaller than Genworth Financial, Inc. quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net income of $7.1M is lower than Genworth Financial, Inc.'s net income of $155M. Notably, Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 107.80x while Genworth Financial, Inc.'s PE ratio is 17.49x. 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 Abacus Global Management, Inc. is 3.97x versus 0.55x for Genworth Financial, Inc.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Lincoln National Corp. has a net margin of 11.24% compared to Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net margin of 9.09%. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s return on equity of 2.8% beat Lincoln National Corp.'s return on equity of 23.18%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a consensus price target of $13.50, signalling upside risk potential of 54.21%. On the other hand Lincoln National Corp. has an analysts' consensus of $45.83 which suggests that it could fall by -0.67%. Given that Abacus Global Management, Inc. has higher upside potential than Lincoln National Corp., analysts believe Abacus Global Management, Inc. is more attractive than Lincoln National Corp..

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a beta of -0.062, which suggesting that the stock is 106.246% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln National Corp. has a beta of 1.339, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 33.865%.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. has a quarterly dividend of $0.20 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.37%. Lincoln National Corp. offers a yield of 3.9% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. Abacus Global Management, Inc. pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National Corp. pays out 9.78% of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National Corp.'s payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Abacus Global Management, Inc. quarterly revenues are $63M, which are smaller than Lincoln National Corp. quarterly revenues of $4.9B. Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s net income of $7.1M is lower than Lincoln National Corp.'s net income of $445M. Notably, Abacus Global Management, Inc.'s price-to-earnings ratio is 107.80x while Lincoln National Corp.'s PE ratio is 4.14x. 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, Inc. is 3.97x versus 0.42x for Lincoln National Corp.. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.