LRCDF
Price
$20.15
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Sep 30 closing price
SFBS
Price
$87.62
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Oct 16 closing price
4 days until earnings call
Ad is loading...

LRCDF vs SFBS

Header iconLRCDF vs SFBS Comparison
Open Charts LRCDF vs SFBSBanner chart's image
Laurentian Bank of Canada
Price$20.15
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$600
CapitalizationN/A
ServisFirst Bancshares
Price$87.62
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$214.61K
CapitalizationN/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
LRCDF vs SFBS Comparison Chart
Loading...
SFBS
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
VS
LRCDF vs. SFBS commentary
Oct 18, 2024

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 SFBS is a StrongBuy.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Oct 18, 2024
Stock price -- (LRCDF: $19.61 vs. SFBS: $87.57)
Brand notoriety: LRCDF and SFBS are both not notable
Both companies represent the Regional Banks industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: LRCDF: 18% vs. SFBS: 88%
Market capitalization -- LRCDF: $1.3B vs. SFBS: $3.57B
LRCDF [@Regional Banks] is valued at $1.3B. SFBS’s [@Regional Banks] market capitalization is $3.57B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Regional Banks] industry ranges from $133.96B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Regional Banks] industry is $5.83B.

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 2 FA rating(s) are green whileSFBS’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • LRCDF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • SFBS’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, SFBS is a better buy in the long-term than LRCDF.

Short-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.

If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.

SFBS’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • SFBS’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.

Price Growth

LRCDF (@Regional Banks) experienced а +2.40% price change this week, while SFBS (@Regional Banks) price change was +11.88% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was -0.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +14.82%.

Reported Earning Dates

SFBS is expected to report earnings on Jan 27, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Regional Banks (-0.91% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
SFBS($3.57B) has a higher market cap than LRCDF($1.3B). SFBS has higher P/E ratio than LRCDF: SFBS (17.31) vs LRCDF (8.54). SFBS YTD gains are higher at: 33.228 vs. LRCDF (-8.555). SFBS has less debt than LRCDF: SFBS (64.7M) vs LRCDF (15.4B). LRCDF has higher revenues than SFBS: LRCDF (1.03B) vs SFBS (427M).
LRCDFSFBSLRCDF / SFBS
Capitalization1.3B3.57B36%
EBITDAN/AN/A-
Gain YTD-8.55533.228-26%
P/E Ratio8.5417.3149%
Revenue1.03B427M242%
Total CashN/A112M-
Total Debt15.4B64.7M23,802%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
LRCDF vs SFBS: Fundamental Ratings
LRCDF
SFBS
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
8811
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
5
Undervalued
100
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10030
SMR RATING
1..100
1213
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5840
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
4415
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50n/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.

LRCDF's Valuation (5) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for SFBS (100) in the Regional Banks industry. This means that LRCDF’s stock grew significantly faster than SFBS’s over the last 12 months.

SFBS's Profit vs Risk Rating (30) in the Regional Banks industry is significantly better than the same rating for LRCDF (100) in the null industry. This means that SFBS’s stock grew significantly faster than LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

LRCDF's SMR Rating (12) in the null industry is in the same range as SFBS (13) in the Regional Banks industry. This means that LRCDF’s stock grew similarly to SFBS’s over the last 12 months.

SFBS's Price Growth Rating (40) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as LRCDF (58) in the null industry. This means that SFBS’s stock grew similarly to LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

SFBS's P/E Growth Rating (15) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as LRCDF (44) in the null industry. This means that SFBS’s stock grew similarly to LRCDF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
SFBS
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
67%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
66%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
86%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
82%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
71%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
69%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
64%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 10 days ago
58%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
74%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
SFBS
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GME21.660.39
+1.83%
GameStop Corp
BTC.X67612.720000571.609400
+0.85%
Bitcoin cryptocurrency
TSLA221.331.76
+0.80%
Tesla
SPY582.302.52
+0.43%
SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust
AAPL231.78-2.07
-0.89%
Apple

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.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To LRCDF
1D Price
Change %
LRCDF100%
N/A
CBWBF - LRCDF
32%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BOKF - LRCDF
32%
Poorly correlated
+1.72%
SFBS - LRCDF
27%
Poorly correlated
+3.05%
CATY - LRCDF
27%
Poorly correlated
+1.44%
FFBC - LRCDF
26%
Poorly correlated
+1.63%
More

SFBS and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SFBS has been closely correlated with FBK. These tickers have moved in lockstep 86% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if SFBS jumps, then FBK could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SFBS
1D Price
Change %
SFBS100%
+3.05%
FBK - SFBS
86%
Closely correlated
+5.64%
WSFS - SFBS
85%
Closely correlated
+1.87%
UBSI - SFBS
85%
Closely correlated
+1.50%
ABCB - SFBS
84%
Closely correlated
+2.26%
SSB - SFBS
84%
Closely correlated
+0.68%
More