3 ms·

>Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who cont

by 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.

fighterpilot 6y ago
> Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing. Agreed, but we don't have access to this, so we need to use what's available. The level of institutional ownership (10%) is useful because it provides approximate/rough bounds on its changes over the last 12 months. Take the limit to see why it's useful: If IO% is currently 0% (100%), we can conclude with some confidence that a protracted move from $0.5 to its current price of $7.5 is retail (institutional) driven. An IO% of 10% doesn't conclusively show that a protracted move is retail driven (for a bunch of reasons, some of which you've highlighted), but it does suggest it (especially in this case where all traded volume is recent), absent better info. > look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell I feel that this is a bit of curve fitting. Retail in general has been selling since January. NNDM's January blow-off was largely GME-hype related, and since then all retail favourites have been weak. Compare the NIO chart to the NNDM chart. They're completely unrelated but topped out at the identical dates and have sold off in the exact same way. This strongly suggests correlation driven by retail flows. Why else would NNDM and NIO track each other so closely since January 2021? > dilution continued. Was there recent dilution? They engaged with an underwriter at a very high offering price, but the 424B5 doesn't suggest an obligation to buy. Since the price tanked after the date of this engagement, I'd assume that no counterparties would've purchased any stock? https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 > Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. I'm talking about the last 12 months. ARKK only held 5%, which leaves 95%.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Rury 6y ago
  >Agreed, but we don't have access to this We do have access to some info on this. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti... Institutional ownership increased by 21.7M shares in 2020, a roughly 8.27% increase in total shares held. Meaning the current institutional ownership almost all came from last year, and ARK lead that by a wide margin.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    True. But since this is a pretty small amount relative to total outstanding it implies that most buying has been retail.

by Rury 6y ago

fighterpilot 6y ago

> Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing. Agreed, but we don't have access to this, so we need to use what's available. The level of institutional ownership (10%) is useful because it provides approximate/rough bounds on its changes over the last 12 months. Take the limit to see why it's useful: If IO% is currently 0% (100%), we can conclude with some confidence that a protracted move from $0.5 to its current price of $7.5 is retail (institutional) driven. An IO% of 10% doesn't conclusively show that a protracted move is retail driven (for a bunch of reasons, some of which you've highlighted), but it does suggest it (especially in this case where all traded volume is recent), absent better info. > look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell I feel that this is a bit of curve fitting. Retail in general has been selling since January. NNDM's January blow-off was largely GME-hype related, and since then all retail favourites have been weak. Compare the NIO chart to the NNDM chart. They're completely unrelated but topped out at the identical dates and have sold off in the exact same way. This strongly suggests correlation driven by retail flows. Why else would NNDM and NIO track each other so closely since January 2021? > dilution continued. Was there recent dilution? They engaged with an underwriter at a very high offering price, but the 424B5 doesn't suggest an obligation to buy. Since the price tanked after the date of this engagement, I'd assume that no counterparties would've purchased any stock? https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 > Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. I'm talking about the last 12 months. ARKK only held 5%, which leaves 95%.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Rury 6y ago
>Agreed, but we don't have access to this We do have access to some info on this. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nndm/instituti... Institutional ownership increased by 21.7M shares in 2020, a roughly 8.27% increase in total shares held. Meaning the current institutional ownership almost all came from last year, and ARK lead that by a wide margin.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  True. But since this is a pretty small amount relative to total outstanding it implies that most buying has been retail.