|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 17, 2020 14:24:05 GMT -5
Based on the CNBC App, institutional investment shot up to 31.5%. It has been a long long time since Mnkd has seen institutional ownership above 30%. That is a real good sign in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by veritasfiliatemporis on Aug 17, 2020 14:26:22 GMT -5
Yes but VDEX for somebody is the future... š¤
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 17, 2020 14:42:19 GMT -5
Based on the CNBC App, institutional investment shot up to 31.5%. It has been a long long time since Mnkd has seen institutional ownership above 30%. That is a real good sign in my opinion. You cannot draw conclusions based on aggregate institutional ownership figures; you have to dive into the numbers to understand them. For example, if somebody has a brokerage account at Fidelity and holds share in street name then that individual no longer legally owns their shares; Fidelity does. Of course the individual has a legal claim against Fidelity for the value of what is in the account, but when bare legal title passes to Fidelity then those shares get included as "institutional ownership" for FMI (the holding company for Fidelity). The same goes for State Street, Blackrock, and all the other big fund managers; an increase in their holdings does not mean that one of the professional managers invested the fund's own money based on rigorous fundamental analysis. If any fund or brokerage account, whether self-directed or professionally managed, or any index fund managed by the fund manager, buys or sells shares then institutional ownership percentage will change. Such changes might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing, but most often it is just noise in the data. Unless you dissect all the individual filings to understand where the change comes from, you should not be encouraged or discouraged. |
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 17, 2020 15:58:16 GMT -5
False alarm. Checked number again and it is at 24.9%. Not sure why it shot up to 31.5%.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Aug 17, 2020 21:11:10 GMT -5
Yes but VDEX for somebody is the future... š¤ Not this timeš |
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Aug 17, 2020 23:09:44 GMT -5
False alarm. Checked number again and it is at 24.9%. Not sure why it shot up to 31.5%. Now aren't you happy matt pointed out that it is a meaningless number without more information?  |
|
|
|
Post by pat on Aug 18, 2020 8:22:38 GMT -5
Based on the CNBC App, institutional investment shot up to 31.5%. Ā It has been a long long time since Mnkd has seen institutional ownership above 30%. Ā That is a real good sign in my opinion. You cannot draw conclusions based on aggregate institutional ownership figures; you have to dive into the numbers to understand them.Ā For example, if somebody has a brokerage account at Fidelity and holds share in street name then that individual no longer legally owns their shares; Fidelity does.Ā Of course the individual has a legal claim against Fidelity for the value of what is in the account, but when bare legal title passes to Fidelity then those shares get included as "institutional ownership" for FMI (the holding company for Fidelity).Ā The same goes for State Street, Blackrock, and all the other big fund managers; an increase in their holdings does not mean that one of the professional managers invested the fund's own money based on rigorous fundamental analysis.Ā If any fund or brokerage account, whether self-directed or professionally managed, or any index fund managed by the fund manager, buys or sells shares then institutional ownership percentage will change.Ā Such changes might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing, but most often it is just noise in the data.Ā Unless you dissect all the individual filings to understand where the change comes from, you should not be encouraged or discouraged.Ā Ā Please explain further āholds share in street nameā. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Aug 18, 2020 8:51:08 GMT -5
Based on the CNBC App, institutional investment shot up to 31.5%. It has been a long long time since Mnkd has seen institutional ownership above 30%. That is a real good sign in my opinion. You cannot draw conclusions based on aggregate institutional ownership figures; you have to dive into the numbers to understand them. For example, if somebody has a brokerage account at Fidelity and holds share in street name then that individual no longer legally owns their shares; Fidelity does. Of course the individual has a legal claim against Fidelity for the value of what is in the account, but when bare legal title passes to Fidelity then those shares get included as "institutional ownership" for FMI (the holding company for Fidelity). The same goes for State Street, Blackrock, and all the other big fund managers; an increase in their holdings does not mean that one of the professional managers invested the fund's own money based on rigorous fundamental analysis. If any fund or brokerage account, whether self-directed or professionally managed, or any index fund managed by the fund manager, buys or sells shares then institutional ownership percentage will change. Such changes might be a good thing, it might be a bad thing, but most often it is just noise in the data. Unless you dissect all the individual filings to understand where the change comes from, you should not be encouraged or discouraged. It is interesting that the number is back up to 31.52% on the CNBC app this morning. So I am not sure why it dropped back yesterday. In response to Mattās post above, I do understand some of what you are talking about. However, in a general sense, companies that have a higher percentage of institutional ownership have a much higher share price over the long haul. Regardless of who owns the shares, it means more of the shares are tied up by the institutions and therefore there is not as many shares available for trading on the street. Thus driving up the price when buying occurs. High institutional ownership also seems to bring stability to the share price as there doesnāt seem to be a much shorting. I am in no way an expert on this subject matter. These are just observations. My overall observation is that we want to see the percentage of institutional ownership go up. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 18, 2020 21:25:00 GMT -5
Please explain further āholds share in street nameā. Thanks. Matt gave a good description. Beyond that try putting exactly that phrase into Google. |
|
|
|
Post by pat on Aug 19, 2020 6:51:05 GMT -5
Please explain further āholds share in street nameā. Thanks. Matt gave a good description. Beyond that try putting exactly that phrase into Google. Not one that I could understand. Thatās why I asked him to elaborate. Part of the reason for doing so was to see how he responded. I work in the industry. I have gotten from his posts over tome that Matt was an accountant. He (and you) post a lot of definitions. Iām trying to get a sense of how much he (and you) actually understand about the business. Or if you are ātyping phrases into googleā and piecing things together. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 19, 2020 8:23:41 GMT -5
Matt gave a good description. Beyond that try putting exactly that phrase into Google. Not one that I could understand. Thatās why I asked him to elaborate. Part of the reason for doing so was to see how he responded. I work in the industry. I have gotten from his posts over tome that Matt was an accountant. He (and you) post a lot of definitions. Iām trying to get a sense of how much he (and you) actually understand about the business. Or if you are ātyping phrases into googleā and piecing things together. That's fair. You might want to phrase the request differently because it sounds rather abrupt, hence my response. For myself I usually post definitions because people ask for them (what does X mean?) and it's hard to see how to go beyond that. I am not an accountant, but rather I work in risk management (although it feels closer to crisis management sometimes). This usually breaks down into telling companies that doing certain things is a bad idea, and dealing with the aftermath when they have done dumb things. |
|
|
|
Post by sugarland on Aug 19, 2020 13:16:36 GMT -5
Not one that I could understand. Thatās why I asked him to elaborate. Part of the reason for doing so was to see how he responded. I work in the industry. I have gotten from his posts over tome that Matt was an accountant. He (and you) post a lot of definitions. Iām trying to get a sense of how much he (and you) actually understand about the business. Or if you are ātyping phrases into googleā and piecing things together. That's fair. You might want to phrase the request differently because it sounds rather abrupt, hence my response. For myself I usually post definitions because people ask for them (what does X mean?) and it's hard to see how to go beyond that. I am not an accountant, but rather I work in risk management (although it feels closer to crisis management sometimes). This usually breaks down into telling companies that doing certain things is a bad idea, and dealing with the aftermath when they have done dumb things. Sounds like you should have been employed by MannKind quite a while ago. Theyāve had a few to clean up. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by pat on Aug 19, 2020 14:14:11 GMT -5
Not one that I could understand. Thatās why I asked him to elaborate. Part of the reason for doing so was to see how he responded. I work in the industry. I have gotten from his posts over tome that Matt was an accountant. He (and you) post a lot of definitions. Iām trying to get a sense of how much he (and you) actually understand about the business. Or if you are ātyping phrases into googleā and piecing things together. That's fair. You might want to phrase the request differently because it sounds rather abrupt, hence my response. For myself I usually post definitions because people ask for them (what does X mean?) and it's hard to see how to go beyond that. I am not an accountant, but rather I work in risk management (although it feels closer to crisis management sometimes). This usually breaks down into telling companies that doing certain things is a bad idea, and dealing with the aftermath when they have done dumb things. Fair. Risk mgmt in finance or āgeneral corporateā across industries? I ask as the former is a fairly specialized skill set. |
|
|
|
Post by myocat on Aug 19, 2020 16:34:31 GMT -5
TDAmeritrade shows 29.26%
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Aug 19, 2020 19:41:31 GMT -5
That's fair. You might want to phrase the request differently because it sounds rather abrupt, hence my response. For myself I usually post definitions because people ask for them (what does X mean?) and it's hard to see how to go beyond that. I am not an accountant, but rather I work in risk management (although it feels closer to crisis management sometimes). This usually breaks down into telling companies that doing certain things is a bad idea, and dealing with the aftermath when they have done dumb things. Fair. Risk mgmt in finance or āgeneral corporateā across industries? I ask as the former is a fairly specialized skill set. General corporate, not financial risk management. As you say, that's a whole different beast. |
|
