Originally Posted by
Fiordland Moose
That's not entirely accurate. The top 20 table reflects registered holders, most of which are custodians holding underlying beneficial interests on account of others. Some of those will be instos, and some of those will be broker custodians holding on behalf of their retail client base. Some are nominees holding on behalf of other nominees (eg NZCSDL) and its difficult to trace through. But many on the top 20 list are custodians for retail funds. Many/most of the custodians shown in the top 20 - FNZ, Custodial Services, Forbar, Hobson Wealth, ASB, JB Were nom, hold for retail. OCA employees trustee holds for staff (retail). Tomlinson #6 and Harrogate #14 its own special class. And a few high net wealths. Most of the insto holdings probably in NZCSD - ACC, some kiwisaver, a few funds, and more nominees. There aren't many SSFs and the last one filed from ANZ showed them increasing their holding.
I'm not disputing there aren't institutions - I was questioning how the level of institutional ownership compares to say Summerset, Arvida, Ryman, and the market more broadly. And it's a question not a statement as I haven't done the work and was interested if you had.
You could be right on instos selling down to retail but I was curious if you had done work in support of it or if it was more acting on a hunch informed by experience. I only became interested as you alluded to a wall of insto selling and that price was being driven by the instos, and on a day where like only $160k traded.
I was dabbling with turnover metrics yesterday for Smartpay - an absolute microcap - 26% of its shares have turned over in the last year. OCA only 18% and the lowest of the RVs. Higher turnover often implies higher institutional coverage.
It's a worthy issue to consider whatever the factset is - retail and insto coverage - and how that feeds into low volume downtrends and high volume breakouts.