InvestorsHub Logo
Replies to #112 on Empresas fka ICA

chmcnfunds

12/26/14 3:04 PM

#113 RE: chmcnfunds #112

Don't trust Zack's. Today they have upgraded ICA. They are not independent because they have an investment arm. Wonder if they have traded ICA over the past several days?

______________________________________________________

Zacks Upgrades Empresas ICA SA to “Neutral” (NYSE:ICA)
December 26th, 2014 • 0 comments • Filed Under • by ABMN Staff

Empresas ICA SA Empresas ICA SA (NYSE:ICA) was upgraded by Zacks from an “underperform” rating to a “neutral” rating in a researchreport issued to clients and investors on Friday. The firm currently has a $5.30 price target on the stock. Zacks‘s target price would indicate a potential upside of 3.31% from the stock’s previous close.

Shares of Empresas ICA SA (NYSE:ICA) traded down 3.12% during mid-day trading on Friday, hitting $4.97. 312,828 shares of the company’s stock traded hands. Empresas ICA SA has a 52 week low of $4.37 and a 52 week high of $8.54. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $5.60 and its 200-day moving average is $6.95. The company’s market cap is $764.3 million.

Empresas ICA SA (NYSE:ICA) last announced its earnings results on Friday, October 24th. The company reported ($0.39) earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of $0.17 by $0.56.

Empresas ICA SAB de CV (NYSE:ICA) is a Mexico-based holding company.

To get a free copy of the research report on Empresas ICA SA (ICA), click here. For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Receive News & Ratings for Empresas ICA SA Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Empresas ICA SA and related companies with Analyst Ratings Network's FREE daily email newsletter
______________________________________________

http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2014/12/26/zacks-upgrades-empresas-ica-sa-to-neutral-nyseica/

ICA

detearing

12/26/14 9:54 PM

#114 RE: chmcnfunds #112

Could be...