Advertisement
CGIUF vs LNSPF
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 CGIUF is a Hold and LNSPF 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).
CGIUF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileLNSPF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CGIUF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- LNSPF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CGIUF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish while LNSPF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CGIUF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 2 bearish.
- LNSPF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CGIUF (@Real Estate Investment Trusts) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while LNSPF (@Real Estate Investment Trusts) price change was +0.77% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Investment Trusts industry was +0.93%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.25%, and the average quarterly price growth was +1.71%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Investment Trusts (+0.93% weekly)A real estate investment trust (REIT) is a company any that owns, and in most cases, operates, income-producing real estate – ranging from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centers, hotels and timberlands. Some REITs are involved in financing real estate. Equity REITs invest in and own properties, while mortgage REITs own and invest in property mortgages. REITs are required by law to pay out at least 90% of their annual taxable income (excluding capital gains) to shareholders in the form of dividends. Some REITs could be more cyclical than others; for example, when an economy is undergoing a recession, hotel REITs could be more vulnerable, compared to say healthcare REIT given that healthcare needs are less likely to depend on economic cycles. American Tower Corporation, Prologis, Inc. and Crown Castle International Corp are some of the biggest REIT companies in the U.S.
| CGIUF | LNSPF | CGIUF / LNSPF | |
| Capitalization | 1.99B | 2.34B | 85% |
| EBITDA | 158M | -477.5M | -33% |
| Gain YTD | -4.400 | 16.630 | -26% |
| P/E Ratio | 17.57 | 7.23 | 243% |
| Revenue | 392M | 147M | 267% |
| Total Cash | 49.6M | 23.9M | 208% |
| Total Debt | 2.46B | 1.02B | 242% |
CGIUF | LNSPF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 40 Fair valued | 76 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 95 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 93 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 54 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 91 | |
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.
CGIUF's Valuation (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LNSPF (76). This means that CGIUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LNSPF’s over the last 12 months.
LNSPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (95) in the null industry is in the same range as CGIUF (100). This means that LNSPF’s stock grew similarly to CGIUF’s over the last 12 months.
LNSPF's SMR Rating (93) in the null industry is in the same range as CGIUF (95). This means that LNSPF’s stock grew similarly to CGIUF’s over the last 12 months.
CGIUF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as LNSPF (54). This means that CGIUF’s stock grew similarly to LNSPF’s over the last 12 months.
LNSPF's P/E Growth Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as CGIUF (100). This means that LNSPF’s stock grew similarly to CGIUF’s over the last 12 months.
| CGIUF | LNSPF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 45% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 33% | 3 days ago 43% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 43% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 20% | 3 days ago 46% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 23% | 3 days ago 43% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 21% | 3 days ago 32% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 67% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 22% | 3 days ago 37% |
Advertisement
CGIUF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CGIUF has been loosely correlated with SILA. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CGIUF jumps, then SILA could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CGIUF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGIUF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SILA - CGIUF | 35% Loosely correlated | -1.02% | ||
| MAPIF - CGIUF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AOTUF - CGIUF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LNSPF - CGIUF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CHTH - CGIUF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
LNSPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LNSPF has been loosely correlated with MAPIF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LNSPF jumps, then MAPIF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LNSPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNSPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MAPIF - LNSPF | 36% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CHTH - LNSPF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BTLCY - LNSPF | 26% Poorly correlated | -1.01% | ||
| UTGPF - LNSPF | 26% Poorly correlated | -0.93% | ||
| CGIUF - LNSPF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||