Insiders Have Been Selling Rumble Inc. (NASDAQ:RUM) Recently yet Still Hold a Significant Stake; 7.5% Drop Last Week Not Ideal
Insiders Have Been Selling Rumble Inc. (NASDAQ:RUM) Recently yet Still Hold a Significant Stake; 7.5% Drop Last Week Not Ideal
Key Insights
主要見解
- Significant insider control over Rumble implies vested interests in company growth
- The top 4 shareholders own 52% of the company
- Insiders have sold recently
- Rumble內部人員對公司增長具有重要影響力。
- 前4大股東擁有該公司的52%。
- 近期內有內部人士出售股票
Every investor in Rumble Inc. (NASDAQ:RUM) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. The group holding the most number of shares in the company, around 53% to be precise, is individual insiders. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
納斯達克RUM的所有投資者都應該了解股票中最強大的股東群體。公司最大的股東持有約53%的股份,具有最大的上行潛力(或下行風險)。
Even though insiders have sold shares recently, the group owns the most numbers of shares in the company. Following last week's 7.5% decline in share price, the group also suffered the most losses.
儘管內部人員最近出售了股票,但該群體仍然持有公司最多的股份。在上週股價下跌7.5%後,該群體也遭受了最大的損失。
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Rumble.
下圖顯示了Rumble的不同所有權群體。
![ownership-breakdown](https://newsfile.futunn.com/public/NN-PersistNewsContentImage/7781/20240621/0-a386bad6aceeb9bfd83a940024c4ec59-0-b537352c4488f73510becc10498c3a18.png/big)
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Rumble?
機構投資者持有大量Rumble的股份。這意味着爲這些機構工作的分析人員已經關注了該股,並且他們對其持有較高的看好態度。但就像其他人一樣,他們也可能出錯。如果兩個大型機構投資者同時試圖拋售某隻股票,經常會出現股價大幅下跌的情況。因此值得檢查Rumble的過去盈利軌跡(以下)。當然,還要記住還有其他因素需要考慮。
Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.
許多機構衡量其業績的標準是一個近似於當地市場的指數。因此,他們通常更加關注包括在主要指數中的公司。
As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Rumble. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. 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 Rumble, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.
納斯達克GM:RUM收入和盈利增長2024年6月21日。
![earnings-and-revenue-growth](https://newsfile.futunn.com/public/NN-PersistNewsContentImage/7781/20240621/0-a386bad6aceeb9bfd83a940024c4ec59-1-aaea8562a32d98684c7d20ddbb219639.png/big)
Rumble is not owned by hedge funds. With a 37% stake, CEO Christopher Pavlovski is the largest shareholder. For context, the second largest shareholder holds about 5.8% of the shares outstanding, followed by an ownership of 5.3% by the third-largest shareholder. Interestingly, the third-largest shareholder, Robert Arsov is also a Lead Director, again, indicating strong insider ownership amongst the company's top shareholders.
Rumble的內部人員擁有大部分股份。這意味着他們可以爲公司集體做出決策。這也意味着內部人員在這個價值16億美元的企業中擁有非常重要的8.34億美元的股份,這是非常有意義的。可以在此處檢查內部人員是否出售了其股份。
To make our study more interesting, we found that the top 4 shareholders control more than half of the company which implies that this group has considerable sway over the company's decision-making.
爲了使我們的研究更有趣,我們發現前四名股東控制了公司一半以上的股份,這意味着該集團對公司的決策具有相當大的影響力。
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 is a little analyst coverage of the stock, but not much. So there is room for it to gain more coverage.
儘管研究公司的機構所有權可以爲您的研究增加價值,但研究分析師的推薦也是一個好禮。該股票受到的分析師覆蓋範圍很小,但不多。因此,它有更多的空間獲得更多的覆蓋範圍。
Insider Ownership Of Rumble
普通公衆持有Rumble38%的股份。雖然這個群體不能來主宰公司,但它可以對公司的運營產生實質影響力。
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.
公司內部人員的定義可能是主觀的,並且在不同的司法管轄區之間有所不同。我們的數據反映了個人內部人員,至少捕捉到董事會成員的記錄。公司管理人員向董事會報告,後者應該代表股東的利益。值得注意的是,有時高級管理人員自己也在董事會中。
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.
我通常認爲內部人士持股是一件好事。但是,在某些情況下,它會使其他股東更難以對董事會的決定進行問責。
Our most recent data indicates that insiders own the majority of Rumble Inc.. This means they can collectively make decisions for the company. That means insiders have a very meaningful US$834m stake in this US$1.6b business. It is good to see this level of investment. You can check here to see if those insiders have been selling any of their shares.
雖然考慮到擁有一家公司的不同群體很值得,但有些因素更爲重要。例如,我們已經確定了Rumble的2個警告信號,您需要了解。
General Public Ownership
一般大衆所有權
The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 38% stake in Rumble. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run.
通常是個人投資者的普通大衆持有Rumble 38%的股份。雖然這群人可能不能決策,但他們肯定能夠對公司的運營產生實際影響。
Next Steps:
下一步:
While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. For instance, we've identified 2 warning signs for Rumble that you should be aware of.
雖然考慮公司的不同所有者群體是很值得的,但還有其他更重要的因素。例如,我們已經確定了Rumble的兩個警告信號,你應該注意到。
If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts.
如果您想發現分析師對未來增長的預測,請不要錯過這份有關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:本文中的數據是使用最後一個財務報表日期結束的爲期12個月的數據計算的。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.
對本文有反饋?關於內容有所顧慮?直接和我們聯繫。或者,發送電子郵件至editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com。
這篇文章是Simply Wall St的一般性文章。我們根據歷史數據和分析師預測提供評論,只使用公正的方法論,我們的文章並不意味着提供任何金融建議。文章不構成買賣任何股票的建議,也不考慮您的目標或您的財務狀況。我們的目標是帶給您基本數據驅動的長期關注分析。請注意,我們的分析可能不考慮最新的價格敏感公司公告或定性材料。Simply Wall St沒有任何股票頭寸。
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
對本文有反饋?關於內容有所顧慮?直接和我們聯繫。或者發送電子郵件至editorial-team@simplywallst.com。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。