Outlook: SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock is assigned short-term B1 & long-term B3 estimated rating.
AUC Score : What is AUC Score?
Short-Term Revised1 :
Time series to forecast n: for Weeks2
Hypothesis Testing : Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test
Surveillance : Major exchange and OTC

1The accuracy of the model is being monitored on a regular basis.(15-minute period)

2Time series is updated based on short-term trends.

## Summary

SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock prediction model is evaluated with Multi-Task Learning (ML) and Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test1,2,3,4 and it is concluded that the SITE stock is predictable in the short/long term. Multi-task learning (MTL) is a machine learning (ML) method in which multiple related tasks are learned simultaneously. This can be done by sharing features and weights between the tasks. MTL has been shown to improve the performance of each task, compared to learning each task independently. According to price forecasts for 1 Year period, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Buy

## Key Points

1. Can neural networks predict stock market?
2. What are buy sell or hold recommendations?
3. How do you pick a stock?

## SITE Target Price Prediction Modeling Methodology

We consider SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock Decision Process with Multi-Task Learning (ML) where A is the set of discrete actions of SITE stock holders, F is the set of discrete states, P : S × F × S → R is the transition probability distribution, R : S × F → R is the reaction function, and γ ∈ [0, 1] is a move factor for expectation.1,2,3,4

F(Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test)5,6,7= $\begin{array}{cccc}{p}_{a1}& {p}_{a2}& \dots & {p}_{1n}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{j1}& {p}_{j2}& \dots & {p}_{jn}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{k1}& {p}_{k2}& \dots & {p}_{kn}\\ & ⋮\\ {p}_{n1}& {p}_{n2}& \dots & {p}_{nn}\end{array}$ X R(Multi-Task Learning (ML)) X S(n):→ 1 Year $R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$

n:Time series to forecast

p:Price signals of SITE stock

j:Nash equilibria (Neural Network)

k:Dominated move

a:Best response for target price

Multi-task learning (MTL) is a machine learning (ML) method in which multiple related tasks are learned simultaneously. This can be done by sharing features and weights between the tasks. MTL has been shown to improve the performance of each task, compared to learning each task independently.

### Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test

The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, also known as the Mann-Whitney U test, is a non-parametric test that is used to compare the medians of two independent samples. It is a rank-based test, which means that it does not assume that the data is normally distributed. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test is calculated by first ranking the data from both samples, and then finding the sum of the ranks for one of the samples. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test statistic is then calculated by subtracting the sum of the ranks for one sample from the sum of the ranks for the other sample. The p-value for the Wilcoxon rank-sum test is calculated using a table of critical values. The p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.

For further technical information as per how our model work we invite you to visit the article below:

How do AC Investment Research machine learning (predictive) algorithms actually work?

## SITE Stock Forecast (Buy or Sell)

Sample Set: Neural Network
Stock/Index: SITE SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock
Time series to forecast: 1 Year

According to price forecasts, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Buy

Strategic Interaction Table Legend:

X axis: *Likelihood% (The higher the percentage value, the more likely the event will occur.)

Y axis: *Potential Impact% (The higher the percentage value, the more likely the price will deviate.)

Z axis (Grey to Black): *Technical Analysis%

### Financial Data Adjustments for Multi-Task Learning (ML) based SITE Stock Prediction Model

1. To calculate the change in the value of the hedged item for the purpose of measuring hedge ineffectiveness, an entity may use a derivative that would have terms that match the critical terms of the hedged item (this is commonly referred to as a 'hypothetical derivative'), and, for example for a hedge of a forecast transaction, would be calibrated using the hedged price (or rate) level. For example, if the hedge was for a two-sided risk at the current market level, the hypothetical derivative would represent a hypothetical forward contract that is calibrated to a value of nil at the time of designation of the hedging relationship. If the hedge was for example for a one-sided risk, the hypothetical derivative would represent the intrinsic value of a hypothetical option that at the time of designation of the hedging relationship is at the money if the hedged price level is the current market level, or out of the money if the hedged price level is above (or, for a hedge of a long position, below) the current market level. Using a hypothetical derivative is one possible way of calculating the change in the value of the hedged item. The hypothetical derivative replicates the hedged item and hence results in the same outcome as if that change in value was determined by a different approach. Hence, using a 'hypothetical derivative' is not a method in its own right but a mathematical expedient that can only be used to calculate the value of the hedged item. Consequently, a 'hypothetical derivative' cannot be used to include features in the value of the hedged item that only exist in the hedging instrument (but not in the hedged item). An example is debt denominated in a foreign currency (irrespective of whether it is fixed-rate or variable-rate debt). When using a hypothetical derivative to calculate the change in the value of such debt or the present value of the cumulative change in its cash flows, the hypothetical derivative cannot simply impute a charge for exchanging different currencies even though actual derivatives under which different currencies are exchanged might include such a charge (for example, cross-currency interest rate swaps).
2. The business model may be to hold assets to collect contractual cash flows even if the entity sells financial assets when there is an increase in the assets' credit risk. To determine whether there has been an increase in the assets' credit risk, the entity considers reasonable and supportable information, including forward looking information. Irrespective of their frequency and value, sales due to an increase in the assets' credit risk are not inconsistent with a business model whose objective is to hold financial assets to collect contractual cash flows because the credit quality of financial assets is relevant to the entity's ability to collect contractual cash flows. Credit risk management activities that are aimed at minimising potential credit losses due to credit deterioration are integral to such a business model. Selling a financial asset because it no longer meets the credit criteria specified in the entity's documented investment policy is an example of a sale that has occurred due to an increase in credit risk. However, in the absence of such a policy, the entity may demonstrate in other ways that the sale occurred due to an increase in credit risk.
3. If there are changes in circumstances that affect hedge effectiveness, an entity may have to change the method for assessing whether a hedging relationship meets the hedge effectiveness requirements in order to ensure that the relevant characteristics of the hedging relationship, including the sources of hedge ineffectiveness, are still captured.
4. If a variable-rate financial liability bears interest of (for example) three-month LIBOR minus 20 basis points (with a floor at zero basis points), an entity can designate as the hedged item the change in the cash flows of that entire liability (ie three-month LIBOR minus 20 basis points—including the floor) that is attributable to changes in LIBOR. Hence, as long as the three-month LIBOR forward curve for the remaining life of that liability does not fall below 20 basis points, the hedged item has the same cash flow variability as a liability that bears interest at three-month LIBOR with a zero or positive spread. However, if the three-month LIBOR forward curve for the remaining life of that liability (or a part of it) falls below 20 basis points, the hedged item has a lower cash flow variability than a liability that bears interest at threemonth LIBOR with a zero or positive spread.

*International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adjustment process involves reviewing the company's financial statements and identifying any differences between the company's current accounting practices and the requirements of the IFRS. If there are any such differences, neural network makes adjustments to financial statements to bring them into compliance with the IFRS.

### SITE SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock Financial Analysis*

Rating Short-Term Long-Term Senior
Outlook*B1B3
Income StatementCaa2B1
Balance SheetB3Caa2
Leverage RatiosB3Caa2
Cash FlowBa3C
Rates of Return and ProfitabilityBaa2B2

*Financial analysis is the process of evaluating a company's financial performance and position by neural network. It involves reviewing the company's financial statements, including the balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement, as well as other financial reports and documents.
How does neural network examine financial reports and understand financial state of the company?

## Conclusions

SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock is assigned short-term B1 & long-term B3 estimated rating. SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock prediction model is evaluated with Multi-Task Learning (ML) and Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test1,2,3,4 and it is concluded that the SITE stock is predictable in the short/long term. According to price forecasts for 1 Year period, the dominant strategy among neural network is: Buy

### Prediction Confidence Score

Trust metric by Neural Network: 82 out of 100 with 734 signals.

## References

1. Jiang N, Li L. 2016. Doubly robust off-policy value evaluation for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 652–61. La Jolla, CA: Int. Mach. Learn. Soc.
2. V. Mnih, A. P. Badia, M. Mirza, A. Graves, T. P. Lillicrap, T. Harley, D. Silver, and K. Kavukcuoglu. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016, pages 1928–1937, 2016
3. Mullainathan S, Spiess J. 2017. Machine learning: an applied econometric approach. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:87–106
4. P. Milgrom and I. Segal. Envelope theorems for arbitrary choice sets. Econometrica, 70(2):583–601, 2002
5. Artis, M. J. W. Zhang (1990), "BVAR forecasts for the G-7," International Journal of Forecasting, 6, 349–362.
6. J. Spall. Multivariate stochastic approximation using a simultaneous perturbation gradient approximation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(3):332–341, 1992.
7. V. Borkar. An actor-critic algorithm for constrained Markov decision processes. Systems & Control Letters, 54(3):207–213, 2005.
Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: What is the prediction methodology for SITE stock?
A: SITE stock prediction methodology: We evaluate the prediction models Multi-Task Learning (ML) and Wilcoxon Sign-Rank Test
Q: Is SITE stock a buy or sell?
A: The dominant strategy among neural network is to Buy SITE Stock.
Q: Is SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock stock a good investment?
A: The consensus rating for SiteOne Landscape Supply Inc. Common Stock is Buy and is assigned short-term B1 & long-term B3 estimated rating.
Q: What is the consensus rating of SITE stock?
A: The consensus rating for SITE is Buy.
Q: What is the prediction period for SITE stock?
A: The prediction period for SITE is 1 Year