Citigroup Inc.'s (NYSE:C) Institutional Investors Lost 3.2% Over the Past Week but Have Profited From Longer-term Gains
Citigroup Inc.'s (NYSE:C) Institutional Investors Lost 3.2% Over the Past Week but Have Profited From Longer-term Gains
Key Insights
关键见解
- Significantly high institutional ownership implies Citigroup's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions
- 47% of the business is held by the top 25 shareholders
- Recent sales by insiders
- 高机构所有权意味着花旗集团的股价对其交易行为很敏感
- 47% 的业务由前 25 名股东持有
- 内部人士最近的销售额
A look at the shareholders of Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) can tell us which group is most powerful. The group holding the most number of shares in the company, around 73% to be precise, is institutions. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
看看花旗集团(纽约证券交易所代码:C)的股东可以告诉我们哪个集团最强大。持有该公司股份最多的集团是机构,准确地说约为73%。换句话说,该集团面临最大的上行潜力(或下行风险)。
Losing money on investments is something no shareholder enjoys, least of all institutional investors who saw their holdings value drop by 3.2% last week. Still, the 41% one-year gains may have helped mitigate their overall losses. But they would probably be wary of future losses.
投资亏损是任何股东都不喜欢的事情,更不用说上周持股价值下降3.2%的机构投资者了。尽管如此,41%的一年期涨幅可能有助于减轻他们的总体亏损。但是他们可能会对未来的损失保持警惕。
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Citigroup.
在下图中,我们放大了花旗集团的不同所有权群体。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Citigroup?
关于花旗集团,机构所有权告诉我们什么?
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.
机构投资者通常将自己的回报与常用指数的回报进行比较。因此,他们通常会考虑收购包含在相关基准指数中的大型公司。
Citigroup 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. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Citigroup, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.
花旗集团已经在股票登记处设立了机构。事实上,他们拥有该公司可观的股份。这可能表明该公司在投资界具有一定程度的信誉。但是,最好谨慎行事,不要依赖机构投资者所谓的验证。他们也是,有时候会弄错。如果两个大型机构投资者试图同时抛售股票,股价大幅下跌的情况并不少见。因此,值得检查花旗集团过去的收益轨迹(见下文)。当然,请记住,还有其他因素需要考虑。
Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. Citigroup is not owned by hedge funds. Our data shows that The Vanguard Group, Inc. is the largest shareholder with 8.9% of shares outstanding. BlackRock, Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 8.6% of common stock, and State Street Global Advisors, Inc. holds about 4.3% of the company stock.
由于机构投资者拥有已发行股票的一半以上,董事会可能必须注意他们的偏好。花旗集团不归对冲基金所有。我们的数据显示,Vanguard Group, Inc.是最大股东,已发行股份为8.9%。贝莱德公司是第二大股东,拥有8.6%的普通股,道富环球顾问公司持有该公司约4.3%的股份。
Our studies suggest that the top 25 shareholders collectively control less than half of the company's shares, meaning that the company's shares are widely disseminated and there is no dominant shareholder.
我们的研究表明,前25名股东共同控制的公司股份不到一半,这意味着该公司的股票分布广泛,没有占主导地位的股东。
While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.
尽管研究公司的机构所有权数据是有意义的,但研究分析师的情绪以了解公众舆论也是有意义的。有很多分析师报道该股,因此可能也值得一看他们的预测。
Insider Ownership Of Citigroup
花旗集团的内部所有权
The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves.
公司内部人员的定义可能是主观的,并且确实因司法管辖区而异。我们的数据反映了个别内部人士,至少涵盖了董事会成员。公司管理层对董事会的回答,董事会应代表股东的利益。值得注意的是,有时高层管理人员自己也在董事会中。
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.
我通常认为内部所有权是一件好事。但是,在某些情况下,这使得其他股东更难要求董事会对决策负责。
Our data suggests that insiders own under 1% of Citigroup Inc. in their own names. As it is a large company, we'd only expect insiders to own a small percentage of it. But it's worth noting that they own US$234m worth of shares. It is always good to see at least some insider ownership, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling.
我们的数据表明,内部人士以自己的名义拥有花旗集团不到1%的股份。由于它是一家大公司,我们只期望内部人士拥有其中的一小部分。但值得注意的是,他们拥有价值2.34亿美元的股票。看到至少有一部分内部所有权总是件好事,但可能值得检查一下这些内部人士是否一直在出售。
General Public Ownership
普通公有制
The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 24% stake in Citigroup. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies.
公众通常是个人投资者,持有花旗集团24%的股份。尽管这种所有权规模可能不足以影响对他们有利的政策决定,但它们仍然可以对公司政策产生集体影响。
Next Steps:
后续步骤:
While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Take risks for example - Citigroup has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of.
尽管值得考虑拥有公司的不同群体,但还有其他因素更为重要。以风险为例——花旗集团有1个警告信号,我们认为你应该注意。
Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.
归根结底,未来是最重要的。您可以访问这份关于公司分析师预测的免费报告。
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:本文中的数字是使用过去十二个月的数据计算得出的,这些数据是指截至财务报表日期当月最后日期的12个月期间。这可能与全年年度报告数据不一致。
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.
对这篇文章有反馈吗?担心内容吗?直接联系我们。或者,发送电子邮件给编辑组(网址为)simplywallst.com。
Simply Wall St 的这篇文章本质上是笼统的。我们仅使用公正的方法提供基于历史数据和分析师预测的评论,我们的文章并非旨在提供财务建议。它不构成买入或卖出任何股票的建议,也没有考虑到您的目标或财务状况。我们的目标是为您提供由基本数据驱动的长期重点分析。请注意,我们的分析可能不会考虑最新的价格敏感型公司公告或定性材料。华尔街只是没有持有上述任何股票的头寸。