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
關鍵洞察
- 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
- 顯著的高機構持股意味着惠普的股票價格對他們的交易行爲敏感。
- 50%的業務由前15位股東持有。
- 通過分析師預測數據和所有權研究,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).
要了解誰真正控制惠普(紐交所:HPQ),了解業務的所有權結構是很重要的。 持有公司股票最多的群體,大約精確到83%,是機構。也就是說,如果股票上漲,這一群體將獲得最多利益(如果出現下跌,他們將損失最多)。
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.
機構投資者是公司市值上週跌至330億美元后受到影響最大的群體。然而,給股東帶來的17%的年回報可能幫助減輕了他們的痛苦。然而,他們應該注意未來可能的進一步損失。
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of HP.
在下面的圖表中,我們聚焦於惠普的不同所有權群體。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About HP?
機構所有權告訴我們惠普什麼?
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一個常見的指數回報進行比較。因此,他們通常會考慮購買納入相關基準指數的大型公司股票。
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上有機構投資者。事實上,他們在公司中擁有相當可觀的股份。這可以表明公司在投資社群中具有一定的信譽。然而,最好謹慎依賴來自機構投資者的所謂驗證。他們有時也會犯錯。當多個機構擁有一隻股票時,總有一種風險,他們可能正處在一個「擁擠的交易」中。當這樣的交易出現問題時,多方可能會爭相快速賣出股票。在沒有增長曆史的公司中,這種風險更高。你可以在下面看到惠普的歷史收益和營業收入,但請記住,故事總是還有更多。
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.
機構投資者擁有該公司超過50%的股份,因此他們能夠強有力地影響董事會的決策。惠普並不被對沖基金所擁有。根據我們的數據顯示,最大股東是先鋒集團,擁有13%的流通股份。同時,第二和第三大股東分別持有12%和5.4%的流通股份。
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,我們可以看到前15大股東控制了50%的所有權,這意味着沒有單一股東擁有多數權益。
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.
研究一家公司的機構持有情況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的做法,以更深入地了解股票的預期表現。許多分析師在跟蹤這隻股票,因此也值得看看他們的預測。
Insider Ownership Of HP
惠普的內部持股
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.
雖然內部人的精確定義可能是主觀的,但幾乎所有人都認爲董事會成員都是內部人。管理層最終要向董事會負責。然而,管理者成爲執行董事會成員並不罕見,尤其是在他們是創始人或首席執行官的情況下。
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.
我通常認爲內部人擁有股份是一件好事。然而,在某些情況下,這使得其他股東更難讓董事會對決策負責。
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.
我們的信息顯示,惠普的內部人士持有該公司不到1%的股份。由於公司規模如此巨大,我們不指望內部人士擁有大量股票。總的來說,他們擁有7300萬美元的股票。可以說,最近的買賣同樣重要。您可以點擊這裏查看內部人士是否有買入或賣出。
General Public Ownership
公衆持股
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.
公衆——包括散戶投資者——在該公司擁有17%的股份,因此不能輕易被忽視。雖然這個群體並不一定能決定大局,但它確實可以對公司的運行產生實際影響。
Next Steps:
下一步:
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...
考慮擁有公司股票的不同群體總是值得的。但爲了更好地了解惠普,我們需要考慮許多其他因素。 請注意,在我們的投資分析中,惠普顯示出3個警示信號,其中1個令人擔憂...
Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.
最終,未來是最重要的。您可以訪問此免費的關於公司分析師預測的報告。
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:本文中的數字是根據過去十二個月的數據計算得出的,指的是截至財務報表日期的月份最後一天的12個月期間。這可能與完整年度的年報數字不一致。
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?對內容有疑慮?請直接與我們聯繫。或者,發送電子郵件至 editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com。
這篇來自Simply Wall St的文章是一般性的。我們根據歷史數據和分析師預測提供評論,採用無偏見的方法,我們的文章並不旨在提供財務建議。它不構成對任何股票的買入或賣出建議,也未考慮到您的目標或財務狀況。我們旨在爲您提供以基本數據驅動的長期分析。請注意,我們的分析可能未考慮最新的價格敏感公司公告或定性材料。Simply Wall St在提到的任何股票中均沒有持倉。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。