LRCDF vs LUMB
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 LRCDF is a Hold and LUMB 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).
LRCDF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileLUMB’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- LRCDF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- LUMB’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
LRCDF (@Regional Banks) experienced а -0.05% price change this week, while LUMB (@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 -1.09%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.76%, and the average quarterly price growth was +9.90%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (-1.09% 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.
| LRCDF | LUMB | LRCDF / LUMB | |
| Capitalization | 1.3B | 33.7M | 3,866% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -3.605 | 4.110 | -88% |
| P/E Ratio | 8.54 | 6.20 | 138% |
| Revenue | 1.03B | 17.7M | 5,842% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 5.08M | - |
| Total Debt | 15.4B | 39K | 39,487,179% |
LRCDF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 4 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 11 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 72 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 29 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a |
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.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| CGCP | 22.44 | 0.07 | +0.31% |
| Capital Group Core Plus Income ETF | |||
| XBJL | 34.73 | -0.18 | -0.51% |
| Innovator US Eq Acclrtd 9 Bffr ETF Jul | |||
| KRMA | 39.84 | -0.72 | -1.78% |
| Global X Conscious Companies ETF | |||
| INQQ | 14.15 | -0.26 | -1.80% |
| INQQ The India Internet ETF | |||
| SIMS | 33.38 | -0.79 | -2.31% |
| SPDR® S&P Kensho Intelligent Strctr ETF | |||
LRCDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LRCDF and CBWBF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LRCDF and CBWBF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LRCDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRCDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CBWBF - LRCDF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SFBS - LRCDF | 28% Poorly correlated | -2.34% | ||
| CATY - LRCDF | 27% Poorly correlated | -1.38% | ||
| BANR - LRCDF | 27% Poorly correlated | -1.48% | ||
| KBCSY - LRCDF | 27% Poorly correlated | +0.12% | ||
More | ||||
LUMB and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LUMB and NWPP have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LUMB and NWPP's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LUMB | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUMB | 100% | N/A | ||
| NWPP - LUMB | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FLEW - LUMB | 21% Poorly correlated | +6.42% | ||
| LRCDF - LUMB | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LFGP - LUMB | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LOGN - LUMB | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||