CBFV vs UMBF
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 CBFV is a Hold and UMBF 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).
CBFV’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileUMBF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CBFV’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- UMBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
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.
UMBF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- UMBF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CBFV (@Regional Banks) experienced а -6.86% price change this week, while UMBF (@Regional Banks) price change was -4.43% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was -0.87%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.98%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.06%.
Reported Earning Dates
CBFV is expected to report earnings on Apr 25, 2025.
UMBF is expected to report earnings on Apr 29, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (-0.87% 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.
| CBFV | UMBF | CBFV / UMBF | |
| Capitalization | 111M | 4.12B | 3% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.608 | -5.272 | -12% |
| P/E Ratio | 4.89 | 11.78 | 42% |
| Revenue | 42.4M | 1.33B | 3% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 447M | - |
| Total Debt | 34.7M | 1.38B | 3% |
CBFV | UMBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 76 | 63 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 49 Fair valued | 91 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 56 | 37 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 37 | 11 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 48 | 59 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 6 | 43 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CBFV's Valuation (49) in the Regional Banks industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UMBF (91). This means that CBFV’s stock grew somewhat faster than UMBF’s over the last 12 months.
UMBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (37) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as CBFV (56). This means that UMBF’s stock grew similarly to CBFV’s over the last 12 months.
UMBF's SMR Rating (11) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as CBFV (37). This means that UMBF’s stock grew similarly to CBFV’s over the last 12 months.
CBFV's Price Growth Rating (48) in the Regional Banks industry is in the same range as UMBF (59). This means that CBFV’s stock grew similarly to UMBF’s over the last 12 months.
CBFV's P/E Growth Rating (6) in the Regional Banks industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UMBF (43). This means that CBFV’s stock grew somewhat faster than UMBF’s over the last 12 months.
| UMBF | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 88% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 77% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 65% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 61% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 63% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 65% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 20 days ago 64% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 65% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 73% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 63% |
CBFV and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CBFV has been loosely correlated with EBC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CBFV jumps, then EBC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBFV | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBFV | 100% | -2.23% | ||
| EBC - CBFV | 37% Loosely correlated | -3.01% | ||
| CCBG - CBFV | 36% Loosely correlated | -2.58% | ||
| PPBI - CBFV | 35% Loosely correlated | -2.70% | ||
| UMBF - CBFV | 35% Loosely correlated | -2.77% | ||
| CBAN - CBFV | 35% Loosely correlated | -2.20% | ||
More | ||||
UMBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, UMBF has been closely correlated with UBSI. These tickers have moved in lockstep 85% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if UMBF jumps, then UBSI could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To UMBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMBF | 100% | -2.77% | ||
| UBSI - UMBF | 85% Closely correlated | -3.37% | ||
| HOPE - UMBF | 83% Closely correlated | -2.07% | ||
| FNB - UMBF | 83% Closely correlated | -2.25% | ||
| HWC - UMBF | 83% Closely correlated | -2.24% | ||
| PNFP - UMBF | 83% Closely correlated | -3.44% | ||
More | ||||