3 ms·

NNDM has nothing to do with passive investors. It's bid up by retail hype.

Rury 6y ago
Nope, recent prices are largely correlated to ARK activity. Price decreases have largely been due to the 11! offerings NNDM has recently made, to tap ARK investors money. https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  NNDM is heavily retail driven, it's been a fan favorite for a year. Their institutional ownership is only 10%[1]. It's similar to IBIO, NKLA, etc, where there's some attention from funds but retail hype on social media is driving it up. ARKK has been buying NNDM, yes, but: - they're not passive. they're active. - they only own 5% of the stock. almost any public stock will have at least 5% owned by some fund, so it's not notable and doesn't disprove the notion that it's retail driven. - ARKK are known to pile into retail frenzy stocks, so that correlation is going to exist often. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti...
  - Rury 6y ago
    Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times a day, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare the strong correlation in rising stock prices and ARK buying. Alternatively any retail investors that jumped in, likely did so from news of ARK buying.
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      > Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. We're talking about pricing/valuation, not trading volume. Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Trades that get closed (i.e., trades that contribute to volume but not ownership) don't have permanent price impact in expectation, and are therefore not useful for answering the question of "why is this stock so high for no good reason?". > The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare how their "WEIGHT IN PROTFOLIO %' dropped despite their "SHARES HELD" has remained constant. I don't get this logic. If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings. Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions. So they only traded 1-2% of total volume. > Dilution reduces Institutional Ownership %, as well as individuals ownership % Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally.
      - Rury 6y ago
        >Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Institutional ownership merely means (shares held by institutions)/(total shares available). It does not signify anything more, and valuation cannot be inferred from such information. Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing, but it's a slippery slope. Anyhow pricing and valuation is all dictated by trading activity. And prices can change massively even with little to no institutional ownernship % or changes thereof. >If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings You are correct, I mismatched and incorrectly worded what I meant. >Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions What I meant to show here was this was the period of obvious dilution. Look at the months prior to march and see the strong correlation to ARK trading and price rise. There were also offerings being made when ARK was buying, but look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell when dilution continued. >Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally. Again poorly worded on my part. I meant can reduce Institutional Ownership %... Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. Using your very argument, if recent institutional ownership has dropped in March, it wouldn't go against the argument that I'm making that NNDM's price rise (as in starting from last years price at ~$1.58 in September) till recently, was largely fueled by ARK activity.

Rury 6y ago

Nope, recent prices are largely correlated to ARK activity. Price decreases have largely been due to the 11! offerings NNDM has recently made, to tap ARK investors money. https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm https://cathiesark.com/ark-combined-holdings-of-nndm

fighterpilot 6y ago
NNDM is heavily retail driven, it's been a fan favorite for a year. Their institutional ownership is only 10%[1]. It's similar to IBIO, NKLA, etc, where there's some attention from funds but retail hype on social media is driving it up. ARKK has been buying NNDM, yes, but: - they're not passive. they're active. - they only own 5% of the stock. almost any public stock will have at least 5% owned by some fund, so it's not notable and doesn't disprove the notion that it's retail driven. - ARKK are known to pile into retail frenzy stocks, so that correlation is going to exist often. [1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti...
- Rury 6y ago
  Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times a day, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare the strong correlation in rising stock prices and ARK buying. Alternatively any retail investors that jumped in, likely did so from news of ARK buying.
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    > Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. We're talking about pricing/valuation, not trading volume. Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Trades that get closed (i.e., trades that contribute to volume but not ownership) don't have permanent price impact in expectation, and are therefore not useful for answering the question of "why is this stock so high for no good reason?". > The vast majority of trade activity recently is from ARK. You can see this by looking at the link I showed and compare how their "WEIGHT IN PROTFOLIO %' dropped despite their "SHARES HELD" has remained constant. I don't get this logic. If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings. Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions. So they only traded 1-2% of total volume. > Dilution reduces Institutional Ownership %, as well as individuals ownership % Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally.
    - Rury 6y ago
      >Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year. Institutional ownership merely means (shares held by institutions)/(total shares available). It does not signify anything more, and valuation cannot be inferred from such information. Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing, but it's a slippery slope. Anyhow pricing and valuation is all dictated by trading activity. And prices can change massively even with little to no institutional ownernship % or changes thereof. >If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings You are correct, I mismatched and incorrectly worded what I meant. >Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions What I meant to show here was this was the period of obvious dilution. Look at the months prior to march and see the strong correlation to ARK trading and price rise. There were also offerings being made when ARK was buying, but look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell when dilution continued. >Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally. Again poorly worded on my part. I meant can reduce Institutional Ownership %... Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. Using your very argument, if recent institutional ownership has dropped in March, it wouldn't go against the argument that I'm making that NNDM's price rise (as in starting from last years price at ~$1.58 in September) till recently, was largely fueled by ARK activity.