Ranked #411 of 414 · scores higher than 1% of peers · safety percentile 1
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the safety percentile (higher = safer; 67+ earns the lower-risk grade)
37 peers with a safety percentile of 0–9, including LIND · Click a bar to see the companies
Why “Higher relative risk”?
The measures below combine into a safety percentile of 1 among Consumer Cyclical companies. It is relative: 67 or more is lower relative risk, 33–66 moderate, below 33 higher.
Mainly because of its debt / equity, beta and current ratio, which are weaker than most Consumer Cyclical peers.
▼Shareholders' equity is negative, so debt/equity counts as among the highest in its peer group. Debt / equity: — vs peer median 0.46×
▼a share price that has swung more with the market: weaker than 98% of peers. Beta: 2.24 vs peer median 0.63
▼fewer short-term assets to cover bills due within a year: weaker than 84% of peers. Current ratio: 0.84× vs peer median 1.48×
Risk is relative to the sector, not a bankruptcy probability. Banks and brokers carry high leverage by design, and share buybacks can shrink equity and current assets, which raises debt/equity on paper.
Metric by metric
Position: dot = LIND, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.
Metric
LIND
Peer median
Better than
Position among peers
Weight
Debt / equityLower is better · 405 reported
Not reported
0.53×
—
—
33%
BetaLower is better · 405 reported
2.24
0.66
1%
33%
Current ratioHigher is better · 399 reported
0.84×
1.48×
14%
33%
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score
