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
關鍵洞察
- 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
- 顯著的機構持股意味着花旗集團的股票價格對他們的交易行爲敏感。
- 前25名股東持有47%的業務。
- 高管近期的賣出行爲
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).
查看花旗集團(紐交所:C)的股東可以告訴我們哪個群體最有權力。 持有公司最多股份的群體,準確地說,大約佔73%,是機構。 換句話說,該群體面臨着最大的上漲潛力(或下跌風險)。
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.
投資虧損是股東都不想經歷的事情,尤其是機構投資者,他們上週看到持股價值下降了3.2%。不過,41%的年收益可能幫助減輕了他們的整體損失。但他們可能會對未來的損失感到謹慎。
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Citigroup.
在下面的圖表中,我們深入研究花旗集團的不同持股群體。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Citigroup?
機構持股信息對花旗集團的意義是什麼?
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。
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.
花旗集團的股東名冊上已經有機構投資者。實際上,他們在公司中擁有可觀的股份。這可能表明該公司在投資社區中具有一定的可信度。然而,最好謹慎依賴於機構投資者所帶來的假定驗證。他們有時也會出錯。如果兩個大型機構投資者同時試圖出售股票,出現大幅股價下跌並不少見。因此,查看花旗集團過去的盈利軌跡(如下)是值得的。當然,也要記住,還有其他因素需要考慮。
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.
由於機構投資者持有一半以上的已發行股票,董事會可能需要關注他們的偏好。 花旗集團不被對沖基金持有。 我們的數據顯示,先鋒集團是最大的股東,持有8.9%的流通股份。 貝萊德是第二大股東,持有8.6%的普通股,而道富銀行全球顧問公司持有約4.3%的公司股票。
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.
我們的研究表明,前25大股東共同控制的公司的股份不到一半,這意味着公司的股份分散廣泛,沒有主導股東。
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.
雖然研究一家公司機構的所有權數據是有意義的,但研究分析師的看法也同樣重要,以了解市場的動態。很多分析師關注這隻股票,因此查看他們的預測也可能是值得的。
Insider Ownership Of Citigroup
花旗集團的內部所有權
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.
公司內部人士的定義可能是主觀的,並在不同法域之間有所不同。我們的數據顯示個人內部人士,至少捕獲了董事會成員。公司管理層對董事會負責,後者應代表股東的利益。值得注意的是,有時高層管理人員本身就是董事會成員。
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 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.
我們的數據顯示,內部人士在花旗集團名下的持股不到1%。由於這是一家大型公司,我們只會期望內部人士擁有其一小部分股份。但值得注意的是,他們持有價值23400萬美元的股票。看到至少一些內部人士持股總是好事,但可能值得檢查這些內部人士是否在出售股票。
General Public Ownership
公衆持股
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.
公衆一般由個人投資者組成,持有花旗集團24%的股份。雖然這種持股比例可能不足以影響政策決定,但他們仍然可以對公司政策產生集體影響。
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. Take risks for example - Citigroup has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of.
雖然考慮擁有一家公司的不同群體非常重要,但還有其他更重要的因素。以風險爲例——花旗集團有1個預警信號,我們認爲您應該注意。
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。