Institutional Owners May Consider Drastic Measures as Central Asia Metals Plc’s


If you want to know who really controls Central Asia Metals plc (LON:CAML), then you’ll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 86% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company.

As a result, institutional investors endured the highest losses last week after market cap fell by UK£43m. This set of investors may especially be concerned about the current loss, which adds to a one-year loss of 18% for shareholders. Institutions or “liquidity providers” control large sums of money and therefore, these types of investors usually have a lot of influence over stock price movements. Hence, if weakness in Central Asia Metals’ share price continues, institutional investors may feel compelled to sell the stock, which might not be ideal for individual investors.

Let’s delve deeper into each type of owner of Central Asia Metals, beginning with the chart below.

What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Central Asia Metals?

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.

We can see that Central Asia Metals does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company’s stock. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. 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 Central Asia Metals’ historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there’s always more to the story.

earnings-and-revenue-growth
earnings-and-revenue-growth

Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. We note that hedge funds don’t have a meaningful investment in Central Asia Metals. Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is BlackRock, Inc. with 7.1% of shares outstanding. The second and third largest shareholders are Fidelity International Ltd and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., with an equal amount of shares to their name at 5.2%.

On studying our ownership data, we found that 25 of the top shareholders collectively own less than 50% of the share register, implying that no single individual has a majority interest.

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.

Insider Ownership Of Central Asia Metals

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. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it.

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.

Shareholders would probably be interested to learn that insiders own shares in Central Asia Metals plc. In their own names, insiders own UK£3.6m worth of stock in the UK£296m company. Some would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. But it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling.

General Public Ownership

With a 12% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Central Asia Metals. 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.

Source: Yahoo Finance

Total
0
Shares
Related Posts