Institutional Investors Are ResMed Inc.'s (NYSE:RMD) Biggest Bettors and Were Rewarded After Last Week's US$1.2b Market Cap Gain
Institutional Investors Are ResMed Inc.'s (NYSE:RMD) Biggest Bettors and Were Rewarded After Last Week's US$1.2b Market Cap Gain
Key Insights
主要見解
- Significantly high institutional ownership implies ResMed's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions
- The top 20 shareholders own 50% of the company
- Analyst forecasts along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business
- 機構持股份額顯著較高意味着瑞思邁的股價對他們的交易行爲非常敏感
- 前20大股東持有該公司50%的股份。
- 分析師預測以及所有者數據可以給我們提供有關業務前景的強烈想法。
If you want to know who really controls ResMed Inc. (NYSE:RMD), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. With 74% stake, institutions possess the maximum shares in the company. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn).
如果您想知道誰真正控制着ResMed Inc.(NYSE: RMD),那麼您就必須查看其股東名冊的構成。機構持有74%的股份,在公司中佔有最大的股份。也就是說,如果股票價格上漲(或者如果出現低迷)該機構將獲利最多(或損失最多)。
And things are looking up for institutional investors after the company gained US$1.2b in market cap last week. One-year return to shareholders is currently 77% and last week's gain was the icing on the cake.
上週公司市值增加了12億美元,機構投資者的前景看起來不錯。股東的一年回報率目前爲77%,而上週的增長更是錦上添花。
Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about ResMed.
讓我們更仔細地看一下,看看不同類型的股東對瑞思邁能告訴我們什麼。
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About ResMed?
機構持股對瑞思邁有何影響?
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。
We can see that ResMed does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. 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 ResMed's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story.
我們可以看到瑞思邁確實有機構投資者,並且他們持有公司股票的一大部分。這可能表明公司在投資界具有一定的信譽度。然而,依賴機構投資者所謂的驗證最好保持警惕。他們有時也會出錯。當多家機構擁有一隻股票時,總是存在它們參與的'擁擠交易'風險。當這樣的交易出錯時,多方可能競相快速拋售股票。在一個沒有增長曆史的公司中,這種風險更大。你可以查看下面瑞思邁的歷史收益和營業收入,但請記住故事總是更多的。
Institutional investors own over 50% of the company, so together than can probably strongly influence board decisions. ResMed is not owned by hedge funds. The company's largest shareholder is The Vanguard Group, Inc., with ownership of 14%. For context, the second largest shareholder holds about 8.2% of the shares outstanding, followed by an ownership of 4.8% by the third-largest shareholder.
機構投資者擁有公司超過50%的股份,因此他們可能會強烈影響董事會的決定。瑞思邁不是由對沖基金持有的。該公司最大的股東是The Vanguard Group, Inc.,持股14%。第二大股東持有公司大約8.2%的股份,第三大股東持有公司4.8%的股份。
After doing some more digging, we found that the top 20 have the combined ownership of 50% in the company, suggesting that no single shareholder has significant control over the company.
經過進一步調查,我們發現前20大股東在公司中擁有50%的股權,這意味着沒有一個股東對公司有重大控制。
Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future.
研究機構所有權是衡量和過濾股票預期表現的好方法。通過研究分析師的情緒也可以實現同樣的目的。由於有相當數量的分析師涵蓋這支股票,因此了解他們對未來的整體看法可能會有所幫助。
Insider Ownership Of ResMed
瑞思邁的內部持股情況
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.
雖然內部人員的精確定義可能具有主觀性,但幾乎所有人都認爲董事會成員是內部人員。管理層最終向董事會負責。然而,如果經理是創始人或CEO,那麼他們成爲執行董事會成員並不罕見。
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.
當內部人持股情況表明領導層思考和公司真正所有者一樣時,內部所有權是積極的。然而,高達內部人士所有權也可能爲公司內的小團體帶來巨大的權力。在某些情況下,這可能是負面的。
Our information suggests that ResMed Inc. insiders own under 1% of the company. 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$195m worth of shares. It is good to see board members owning shares, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying.
我們的信息顯示,瑞思邁公司的內部持有人擁有不到1%的股份。由於它是一家大公司,我們只期望內部持有者擁有很小的比例。但值得注意的是,他們擁有價值1億9500萬美元的股票。看到董事會成員持有股票是件好事,但也值得注意的是他們是否一直在買入。
General Public Ownership
一般大衆所有權
The general public-- including retail investors -- own 26% 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.
包括零售投資者在內的普通公衆持有該公司26%的股份,因此不能輕易忽略。雖然該團體無法必然控制公司的決策,但它肯定會對公司的經營產生實際的影響。
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.
我覺得查看公司的實際所有者非常有趣。但爲了真正獲得洞察力,我們需要考慮其他信息。
I always like to check for a history of revenue growth. You can too, by accessing this free chart of historic revenue and earnings in this detailed graph.
我總是喜歡查看營業收入增長的歷史記錄,你也可以免費訪問這個詳細圖表中的歷史營收和收益圖表。
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.
如果您像我一樣,可能希望考慮這家公司是否會增長或縮小。幸運的是,您可以查看此免費報告,顯示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: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.
對這篇文章有反饋嗎?對內容感到擔憂嗎?請直接與我們聯繫。或者,發送電子郵件至editorial-team @ simplywallst.com。
Simply Wall St的這篇文章是一般性質的。我們僅基於歷史數據和分析師預測提供評論,使用公正的方法,我們的文章並非意在提供財務建議。這並不構成買入或賣出任何股票的建議,並且不考慮您的目標或財務狀況。我們旨在爲您帶來基於基礎數據驅動的長期聚焦分析。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對提及的任何股票都沒有持倉。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。