Price (90d)
No price history yet — the daily price refresh runs once a day.
Signal Score (90d)
98Quote
Valuation & Ratios
Returns & Efficiency
Revenue & Net Income (Annual)
| Fiscal Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | $5.38B | $132.99M | $1.33 |
| 2024 | $5.80B | $251.60M | $2.45 |
| 2023 | $6.39B | $411.15M | $3.90 |
| 2022 | $7.24B | $657.92M | $6.08 |
| 2021 | $6.46B | $598.63M | $5.42 |
Social Signal Score
Earnings
Wed, Oct 28(in 2 months)
Consensus estimate $0.47 per share
Typical surprise +0.0% (median, so one quarter with a near-zero estimate can't distort it)
- Thu, Jul 23$0.26 vs $0.26beat
- Thu, Apr 23$0.14 vs $0.14beat
- Thu, Jan 29$0.32 vs $0.30beat
- Wed, Oct 22$0.43 vs $0.43beat
- Wed, Jul 23$0.41 vs $0.40beat
- Wed, Apr 23$0.17 vs $0.36miss
Estimates and results for RHI via Financial Modeling Prep. Beating consensus says the company cleared the bar analysts set, not that the business grew.
Valuation
Project earnings forward and see what return today's price implies.
Seeded from RHI's reported EPS growth of -29.6% a year over 4 years. Historical EPS growth of -30% would project the company towards zero. Floored at -15% as a starting point.
- EPS in 5 years
- $0.59
- Implied price
- $11.79
- Return from $43.22
- -22.9% a year
To earn 15.0% a year on these assumptions you'd need to buy at $5.86 — -86.4% below today's price.
How sensitive is that answer?
Annual return across nearby assumptions. If the result is only attractive in one corner, that is the finding.
| growth \ P/E | 14 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -25.0% | -36.6% | -34.1% | -32.0% | -30.0% | -28.3% |
| -20.0% | -32.4% | -29.7% | -27.4% | -25.4% | -23.5% |
| -15.0% | -28.2% | -25.3% | -22.9% | -20.7% | -18.7% |
| -10.0% | -24.0% | -21.0% | -18.3% | -16.0% | -13.9% |
| -5.0% | -19.7% | -16.6% | -13.8% | -11.4% | -9.2% |
This is arithmetic on assumptions you chose, not a forecast or a recommendation. It ignores dividends, buybacks, share issuance and debt, and it assumes a company still earning money in 5 years. Change any input and the answer changes a lot — that sensitivity is the honest result, not a flaw in the model.
Mentions (2)
- News (RSS)venturebeat·1d ago·Neutral
Three Claude agents given conflicting orders sabotaged each other on a shared server — then didn't tell users what they'd done Every Claude model Anthropic tested turned on its own, and no attacker made them do it. Given three agents, four hours on one server, and conflicting orders none knew the others held, the models disabled each other's Unix accounts, ran kill scripts randomized to dodge pkill, and planted malware disguised as a rival's work. There was no prompt injection and no adversary.
View source ↗ - News (RSS)thisismoney·6d ago·Negative
Andy Burnham's Manchester tailor sews up spot on Savile Row Private White VC, founded by James Eden (pictured) counts Sir David Beckham, the King of Spain, Robert De Niro and Daniel Craig as customers.
View source ↗