Institutional Owners May Ignore JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s (NYSE:JPM) Recent US$35b Market Cap Decline as Longer-term Profits Stay in the Green
Institutional Owners May Ignore JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s (NYSE:JPM) Recent US$35b Market Cap Decline as Longer-term Profits Stay in the Green
Key Insights
關鍵見解
- Institutions' substantial holdings in JPMorgan Chase implies that they have significant influence over the company's share price
- The top 25 shareholders own 45% of the company
- Insiders have sold recently
- 各機構持有摩根大通的大量股權意味着它們對該公司的股價具有重大影響
- 前25名股東擁有公司45%的股份
- 業內人士最近賣出了
Every investor in JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 73% ownership. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
摩根大通的每位投資者(紐約證券交易所代碼:JPM)應該知道最強大的股東群體。而持有最大份額的集團是擁有73%所有權的機構。換句話說,該集團面臨最大的上行潛力(或下行風險)。
Losing money on investments is something no shareholder enjoys, least of all institutional investors who saw their holdings value drop by 5.5% last week. Still, the 51% one-year gains may have helped mitigate their overall losses. They should, however, be mindful of further losses in the future.
投資虧損是任何股東都不喜歡的事情,更不用說上週持股價值下降5.5%的機構投資者了。儘管如此,51%的一年期漲幅可能有助於減輕他們的總體虧損。但是,他們應該注意將來的進一步損失。
Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about JPMorgan Chase.
讓我們仔細看看不同類型的股東能告訴我們有關摩根大通的信息。
![big](https://newsfile.futunn.com/public/NN-PersistNewsContentImage/7781/20240910/0-1f18b2f18deb7d23bd3db74bc9fce529-0-d472a64540e9d3378ae69a7b5b663d8a.png/big)
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About JPMorgan Chase?
關於摩根大通,機構所有權告訴我們什麼?
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.
許多機構根據近似於當地市場的指數來衡量自己的表現。因此,他們通常會更多地關注主要指數中包含的公司。
As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in JPMorgan Chase. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. 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 JPMorgan Chase, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.
如您所見,機構投資者持有摩根大通的相當數量的股份。這表明專業投資者有一定的信譽。但是我們不能僅僅依靠這個事實,因爲機構有時會像所有人一樣進行不良投資。如果兩個大型機構投資者試圖同時拋售股票,股價大幅下跌的情況並不少見。因此,值得查看摩根大通過去的收益軌跡(見下文)。當然,請記住,還有其他因素需要考慮。
![big](https://newsfile.futunn.com/public/NN-PersistNewsContentImage/7781/20240910/0-1f18b2f18deb7d23bd3db74bc9fce529-1-a5e441b5ab8b17a9f3f0fc33263329c9.png/big)
Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. JPMorgan Chase is not owned by hedge funds. Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is The Vanguard Group, Inc. with 9.5% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 7.0% and 4.4% of the stock.
投資者應注意,機構實際上擁有公司一半以上的股份,因此它們可以共同行使巨大的權力。摩根大通不歸對沖基金所有。從我們的數據來看,我們可以看到最大的股東是Vanguard Group, Inc.,其已發行股份爲9.5%。相比之下,第二和第三大股東持有約7.0%和4.4%的股份。
A deeper look at our ownership data shows that the top 25 shareholders collectively hold less than half of the register, suggesting a large group of small holders where no single shareholder has a majority.
深入研究我們的所有權數據表明,前25名股東總共持有不到登記冊的一半,這表明一大批小股東沒有單一股東佔多數。
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.
雖然研究公司的機構所有權可以爲您的研究增加價值,但研究分析師的建議以更深入地了解股票的預期表現也是一種好做法。有很多分析師在報道該股,因此可能也值得一看他們的預測。
Insider Ownership Of JPMorgan Chase
摩根大通的內部所有權
While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it.
儘管內部人士的確切定義可能是主觀的,但幾乎每個人都認爲董事會成員是內部人士。公司管理層經營業務,但首席執行官將對董事會負責,即使他或她是董事會成員。
Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances.
當內部所有權表明領導層像公司的真正所有者一樣思考時,內部所有權是積極的。但是,高度的內部所有權也可以賦予公司內部的一小部分人巨大的權力。在某些情況下,這可能是負面的。
Our most recent data indicates that insiders own less than 1% of JPMorgan Chase & Co.. Being so large, we would not expect insiders to own a large proportion of the stock. Collectively, they own US$2.2b of stock. In this sort of situation, it can be more interesting to see if those insiders have been buying or selling.
我們最新的數據顯示,內部人士擁有摩根大通不到1%的股份。由於規模如此之大,我們預計內部人士不會擁有很大一部分股票。他們共擁有22億美元的股票。在這種情況下,看看這些內部人士是在買入還是賣出可能會更有趣。
General Public Ownership
一般公有制
With a 26% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over JPMorgan Chase. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders.
擁有26%的所有權的公衆(主要是個人投資者)對摩根大通有一定程度的影響力。這種所有權規模雖然可觀,但如果決策與其他大股東不同步,可能不足以改變公司政策。
Next Steps:
後續步驟:
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 2 warning signs for JPMorgan Chase (1 doesn't sit too well with us!) that you should be aware of before investing here.
我覺得看看究竟誰擁有一家公司非常有趣。但是,要真正獲得見解,我們還需要考慮其他信息。例如,我們發現了摩根大通的兩個警告信號(其中一個對我們來說不太合適!)在這裏投資之前,您應該注意這一點。
If you are like me, you may want to think about whether this company will grow or shrink. Luckily, you can check this free report showing analyst forecasts for its future.
如果你像我一樣,你可能需要考慮這家公司是會成長還是會萎縮。幸運的是,您可以查看這份免費報告,其中顯示了分析師對其未來的預測。
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:本文中的數字是使用過去十二個月的數據計算得出的,這些數據是指截至財務報表日期當月最後一天的12個月期間。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.
對這篇文章有反饋嗎?對內容感到擔憂嗎?請直接聯繫我們。或者,也可以發送電子郵件至編輯團隊 (at) simplywallst.com。
Simply Wall St的這篇文章本質上是籠統的。我們僅使用公正的方法根據歷史數據和分析師的預測提供評論,我們的文章無意作爲財務建議。它不構成買入或賣出任何股票的建議,也沒有考慮到您的目標或財務狀況。我們的目標是爲您提供由基本數據驅動的長期重點分析。請注意,我們的分析可能不考慮最新的價格敏感型公司公告或定性材料。簡而言之,華爾街沒有持有任何上述股票的頭寸。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。