Institutional Investors in Lemonade, Inc. (NYSE:LMND) Lost 4.5% Last Week but Have Reaped the Benefits of Longer-term Growth
Institutional Investors in Lemonade, Inc. (NYSE:LMND) Lost 4.5% Last Week but Have Reaped the Benefits of Longer-term Growth
Key Insights
主要見解
- Given the large stake in the stock by institutions, Lemonade's stock price might be vulnerable to their trading decisions
- 50% of the business is held by the top 9 shareholders
- Insiders have sold recently
- 考慮到機構在股票中持有的大部分股份,lemonade的股價可能會受到他們交易決策的影響
- 前9大股東持有該業務的50%。
- 近期內有內部人士出售股票
To get a sense of who is truly in control of Lemonade, Inc. (NYSE:LMND), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. With 47% stake, institutions possess the maximum shares in the company. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
要了解誰真正控制着Lemonade公司(紐約證交所:LMND),了解業務的所有權結構至關重要。機構擁有47%的股份,在公司中持有最大比例的股份。換句話說,該團體面臨着最大的上行潛力(或下行風險)。
No shareholder likes losing money on their investments, especially institutional investors who saw their holdings drop 4.5% in value last week. However, the 49% one-year returns may have helped alleviate their overall losses. We would assume however, that they would be on the lookout for weakness in the future.
沒有股東喜歡在投資中虧錢,尤其是機構投資者上週看到他們的持股價值下跌了4.5%。然而,一年內49%的回報率可能有助於減輕他們的總體損失。然而,我們會假設他們會警惕未來的風險。
Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Lemonade, beginning with the chart below.
讓我們深入了解每種Lemonade所有者的類型,從下面的圖表開始。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Lemonade?
機構所有權對Lemonade有什麼影響?
Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing.
機構通常在向自己的投資者報告時會針對一個基準進行衡量,因此一旦某隻股票被納入主要指數,他們通常會更加熱衷於該股票。我們預計大多數公司都會有一些機構在登記簿上,尤其是那些正在增長的公司。
As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Lemonade. 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 Lemonade, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.
正如您所看到的,機構投資者在Lemonade中持有相當大的股份。這可能表明該公司在投資社區中具有一定的信譽度。然而,最好不要過分依賴於機構投資者所帶來的所謂驗證。他們有時也會犯錯。如果兩個大型機構投資者同時試圖拋售一隻股票,股價大幅下跌並不罕見。因此,值得查看Lemonade過去的收益軌跡(如下)。當然,也要記住還有其他因素需要考慮。
Lemonade is not owned by hedge funds. Our data shows that Softbank Group Capital Limited is the largest shareholder with 17% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 7.5% and 5.7% of the stock.
Lemonade不是由對沖基金所有。我們的數據顯示,軟銀集團資本有限公司是最大的股東,持有17%的股份。相比之下,第二和第三大股東持有約7.5%和5.7%的股份。
We also observed that the top 9 shareholders account for more than half of the share register, with a few smaller shareholders to balance the interests of the larger ones to a certain extent.
我們還觀察到,前9大股東持有超過股份註冊的一半,還有一些小股東平衡大股東的利益。
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. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily.
雖然研究一個公司的機構持股數據是有意義的,但研究分析師預期增長也是有意義的,因爲很多分析師都有關注這些股票,因此可以很容易地了解預期增長。
Insider Ownership Of Lemonade
Lemonade的內部所有權
The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. 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.
在不同國家,內部人員的定義可能會略有不同,但董事會成員始終是內部人員。管理層最終向董事會負責。然而,如果管理人員是創始人或CEO,那麼成爲執行董事會成員也是很常見的。
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 some shares in Lemonade, Inc.. It is a pretty big company, so it is generally a positive to see some potentially meaningful alignment. In this case, they own around US$74m worth of shares (at current prices). It is good to see this level of investment by insiders. You can check here to see if those insiders have been buying recently.
根據我們最新數據,內部人士在Lemonade,Inc.擁有一些股份。 這是一家規模相當大的公司,因此看到一些可能具有重大意義的一致性是一個積極的信號。在這種情況下,他們持有價值約7400萬美元的股份(按當前價格計算)。見到內部人員進行這種投資是件好事。您可以在這裏檢查,看看這些內部人員最近是否一直在買入。
General Public Ownership
一般大衆所有權
With a 28% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Lemonade. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run.
一般公衆擁有28%的所有權,主要由個人投資者組成,對Lemonade有一定程度的影響力。雖然這個群體不一定能左右公司的決策,但確實對公司的運作產生了實際影響。
Private Equity Ownership
股權投資公司持有8.8%的股份,有能力參與塑造以價值創造爲重點的公司策略。一些投資者可能會因此而受到鼓舞,因爲股權投資公司有時可以鼓勵市場看到公司的價值,從而採取有益的策略。另外,那些持有者可能在將其上市後退出投資。
Private equity firms hold a 17% stake in Lemonade. This suggests they can be influential in key policy decisions. Some investors might be encouraged by this, since private equity are sometimes able to encourage strategies that help the market see the value in the company. Alternatively, those holders might be exiting the investment after taking it public.
股權投資公司持有Lemonade 17%的股份。這表明他們可能在關鍵政策決策中發揮影響力。一些投資者可能會受到鼓舞,因爲股權投資有時能夠推動戰略,幫助市場看到公司的價值。另一方面,這些持有者可能在將其上市後退出投資。
Next Steps:
下一步:
I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. For example, we've discovered 1 warning sign for Lemonade that you should be aware of before investing here.
我發現了解一家公司真正的所有者非常有趣。但要真正獲得洞察力,我們還需要考慮其他信息。例如,我們發現了一條關於Lemonade的警告信號,您在進行投資之前應該注意。
But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future.
但最終,決定該業務所有者將獲得多大利益的是未來而非過去。因此,我們認爲最好查看此免費報告,以了解分析師是否預測更光明的未來。
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.
對本文有任何反饋?對內容有任何疑慮?請直接與我們聯繫。或者,發送電子郵件至editorial-team@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。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。