CCFC vs MBKL
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is CCFC is a Hold and MBKL is a Hold.
Long-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).
CCFC’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMBKL’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CCFC’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- MBKL’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CCFC (@Regional Banks) experienced а -3.17% price change this week, while MBKL (@Regional Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +0.40%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.87%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.03%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (+0.40% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| CCFC | MBKL | CCFC / MBKL | |
| Capitalization | 13M | 50.1M | 26% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 5.636 | -2.703 | -209% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 3.21M | 15.1M | 21% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 13.4M | 10M | 134% |
CCFC | MBKL | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 31 Undervalued | 27 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 87 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 86 | 8 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 73 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 65 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 45 |
Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.
MBKL's Valuation (27) in the null industry is in the same range as CCFC (31). This means that MBKL’s stock grew similarly to CCFC’s over the last 12 months.
MBKL's Profit vs Risk Rating (87) in the null industry is in the same range as CCFC (100). This means that MBKL’s stock grew similarly to CCFC’s over the last 12 months.
MBKL's SMR Rating (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CCFC (86). This means that MBKL’s stock grew significantly faster than CCFC’s over the last 12 months.
MBKL's Price Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as CCFC (73). This means that MBKL’s stock grew similarly to CCFC’s over the last 12 months.
MBKL's P/E Growth Rating (65) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CCFC (100). This means that MBKL’s stock grew somewhat faster than CCFC’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CCFC and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CCFC and CRZBF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CCFC and CRZBF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CCFC | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCFC | 100% | -3.17% | ||
| CRZBF - CCFC | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MBKL - CCFC | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HRGG - CCFC | 24% Poorly correlated | +1.75% | ||
| HCKG - CCFC | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ERKH - CCFC | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MBKL and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MBKL has been loosely correlated with CMGGF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 38% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MBKL jumps, then CMGGF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MBKL | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBKL | 100% | N/A | ||
| CMGGF - MBKL | 38% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| HRGG - MBKL | 33% Poorly correlated | +1.75% | ||
| FFMR - MBKL | 31% Poorly correlated | -0.00% | ||
| CRZBF - MBKL | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HCBN - MBKL | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||