HP Inc.'s (NYSE:HPQ) Institutional Investors Lost 3.3% Last Week but Have Benefitted From Longer-term Gains
HP Inc.'s (NYSE:HPQ) Institutional Investors Lost 3.3% Last Week but Have Benefitted From Longer-term Gains
Key Insights
關鍵見解
- Significantly high institutional ownership implies HP's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions
- 50% of the business is held by the top 15 shareholders
- Using data from analyst forecasts alongside ownership research, one can better assess the future performance of a company
- 高機構所有權意味着惠普的股價對其交易行爲很敏感
- 50% 的業務由前 15 名股東持有
- 使用分析師預測的數據以及所有權研究,可以更好地評估公司的未來表現
To get a sense of who is truly in control of HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. The group holding the most number of shares in the company, around 83% to be precise, is institutions. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn).
要了解誰真正控制了惠普公司(紐約證券交易所代碼:HPQ),了解業務的所有權結構非常重要。持有該公司股份最多的集團是機構,準確地說約爲83%。也就是說,如果股票上漲,該集團將受益最大(如果出現低迷,則損失最大)。
Institutional investors was the group most impacted after the company's market cap fell to US$33b last week. However, the 17% one-year return to shareholders may have helped lessen their pain. They should, however, be mindful of further losses in the future.
上週該公司的市值跌至330億美元后,機構投資者是受影響最大的群體。但是,17%的股東一年回報率可能有助於減輕他們的痛苦。但是,他們應該注意將來的進一步損失。
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of HP.
在下圖中,我們放大了惠普的不同所有權群體。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About HP?
關於惠普,機構所有權告訴我們什麼?
Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index.
機構投資者通常將自己的回報與常用指數的回報進行比較。因此,他們通常會考慮收購包含在相關基準指數中的大型公司。
HP already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see HP's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story.
惠普已經在股票登記處設立了機構。事實上,他們擁有該公司可觀的股份。這可能表明該公司在投資界具有一定程度的信譽。但是,最好謹慎行事,不要依賴機構投資者所謂的驗證。他們也是,有時候會弄錯。當多家機構擁有一隻股票時,總是存在處於 「擁擠交易」 的風險。當這樣的交易出錯時,多方可能會競相快速出售股票。對於沒有增長曆史的公司,這種風險更高。你可以在下面看到惠普的歷史收益和收入,但請記住,故事中總是有更多內容。
Institutional investors own over 50% of the company, so together than can probably strongly influence board decisions. HP is not owned by hedge funds. Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is The Vanguard Group, Inc. with 13% of shares outstanding. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders, hold 12% and 5.4%, of the shares outstanding, respectively.
機構投資者擁有公司50%以上的股份,因此加在一起可能會對董事會的決策產生重大影響。惠普不歸對沖基金所有。從我們的數據來看,我們可以看到最大的股東是Vanguard Group, Inc.,其已發行股份爲13%。同時,第二和第三大股東分別持有已發行股份的12%和5.4%。
Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 50% of the ownership is controlled by the top 15 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership.
查看股東登記處,我們可以看到50%的所有權由前15名股東控制,這意味着沒有一個股東在所有權中擁有多數權益。
While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.
雖然研究公司的機構所有權可以爲你的研究增加價值,但研究分析師的建議以更深入地了解股票的預期表現也是一種很好的做法。有很多分析師報道該股,因此可能也值得一看他們的預測。
Insider Ownership Of HP
惠普的內部所有權
While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO.
儘管內部人員的確切定義可能是主觀的,但幾乎所有人都認爲董事會成員是內部人士。管理層最終向董事會負責。但是,經理成爲執行董事會成員的情況並不少見,特別是如果他們是創始人或首席執行官。
I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions.
我通常認爲內部所有權是一件好事。但是,在某些情況下,這使得其他股東更難要求董事會對決策負責。
Our information suggests that HP Inc. insiders own under 1% of the company. Being so large, we would not expect insiders to own a large proportion of the stock. Collectively, they own US$73m of stock. Arguably recent buying and selling is just as important to consider. You can click here to see if insiders have been buying or selling.
我們的信息表明,惠普公司內部人士擁有該公司不到1%的股份。由於規模如此之大,我們預計內部人士不會擁有很大一部分股票。他們共擁有7300萬美元的股票。可以說,最近的買入和賣出同樣值得考慮。您可以點擊此處查看內部人士是否在買入或賣出。
General Public Ownership
普通公有制
The general public-- including retail investors -- own 17% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run.
包括散戶投資者在內的公衆擁有該公司17%的股份,因此不容忽視。儘管這個群體不一定能做主,但它肯定會對公司的運作方式產生真正的影響。
Next Steps:
後續步驟:
It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand HP better, we need to consider many other factors. Be aware that HP is showing 3 warning signs in our investment analysis , and 1 of those is concerning...
擁有公司股份的不同群體總是值得考慮的。但是,爲了更好地了解惠普,我們需要考慮許多其他因素。請注意,惠普在我們的投資分析中顯示出3個警告信號,其中一個與...
Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.
歸根結底,未來是最重要的。您可以訪問這份關於公司分析師預測的免費報告。
NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures.
注意:本文中的數字是使用過去十二個月的數據計算得出的,這些數據是指截至財務報表日期當月最後日期的12個月期間。這可能與全年年度報告數據不一致。
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
對這篇文章有反饋嗎?擔心內容嗎?直接聯繫我們。或者,發送電子郵件給編輯組(網址爲)simplywallst.com。
Simply Wall St 的這篇文章本質上是籠統的。我們僅使用公正的方法提供基於歷史數據和分析師預測的評論,我們的文章並非旨在提供財務建議。它不構成買入或賣出任何股票的建議,也沒有考慮到您的目標或財務狀況。我們的目標是爲您提供由基本數據驅動的長期重點分析。請注意,我們的分析可能不會考慮最新的價格敏感型公司公告或定性材料。華爾街只是沒有持有上述任何股票的頭寸。