Competitors and Market Share

[Jacmar]

Also, a question on institutional investors. I've read up the definition on institutional investors, but I still don't quite understand it. Based on investopedia, it is a non-bank investor, yet not retail also.

Thought I'd use an example to clarify. I extracted this from Sheng Siong AR2013

S/N Name No. of shares Percentage
1 SHENG SIONG HOLDINGS PTE LTD 448,800,000 32.44
2 LIM HOCK CHEE 170,400,000 12.32
3 LIM HOCK ENG 170,400,000 12.32
4 LIM HOCK LENG 170,400,000 12.32
5 HSBC (SINGAPORE) NOMINEES PTE LTD 77,289,300 5.59
6 DBS NOMINEES (PRIVATE) LIMITED 33,622,001 2.43
7 CITIBANK NOMINEES SINGAPORE PTE LTD 30,722,904 2.22
8 TAN LING SAN 30,000,000 2.17
9 UNITED OVERSEAS BANK NOMINEES (PRIVATE) LIMITED 23,597,020 1.71
10 DBSN SERVICES PTE. LTD. 20,894,723 1.51
11 DB NOMINEES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD 8,440,429 0.61
12 LIM KIM HOCK 8,400,000 0.61
13 PHILLIP SECURITIES PTE LTD 4,455,000 0.32
14 RAFFLES NOMINEES (PTE) LIMITED 3,622,964 0.26
15 CHEAH SEE HAN 2,990,000 0.22
16 BANK OF SINGAPORE NOMINEES PTE. LTD. 2,762,000 0.20
17 OCBC NOMINEES SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED 2,632,000 0.19
18 LIM YEW LYE 2,601,000 0.19
19 BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES SINGAPORE BRANCH 2,585,000 0.19
20 YEOH SIEW SIAN 2,000,000 0.14

Using the above example, which of the above are considered as institutional investors?
None of them?

from the above you can't really tell who are the institutional investors. Some of the nominees account could be. Sometimes you may get a Chartered Asset mgt or Aberdeen shown but there are many institutional ownership held under nominees account too. Some of the nominees above could be pledge shares on behalf of individuals. most of the times you only get to know when they cross the 5% when they are required to declare ownership

[Ferns]

Managed to find a place that states the % of institutional investors, but not sure how accurate it is...

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/T...?s=OV8:SES

Would this be a suitable proxy to getting a sense of the institutional ownership, since according to Jacmar, we won't be able to tell from the AR?

[dzwm87]

If you are intending to track institutional investors as a indicator signal, it is going to be hard and futile because there could be numerous reasons (apart from company fundamentals) why they acquired or divested.

I tend to favor insider transactions from management/family/spouse of mgmt.

Anyway, FT reporting is irregular and you cannot pin point to a specific date for their transaction.

[Ferns]

Not so much for indicator signal, but more of trying to follow Peter Lynch's advise of staying away from stocks with high institutional ownership.

So if that's the intent, this information should suffice? Since the specific date of transaction isn't important.

[dzwm87]

Well, it depends. Normally small and mid caps or companies with little sell-house coverage should have lesser institutional ownership.

I manually tracked FT information before and IMO, it's not helpful at all or rather not worth the effort.

[CityFarmer]

Not so much for indicator signal, but more of trying to follow Peter Lynch's advise of staying away from stocks with high institutional ownership.

So if that's the intent, this information should suffice? Since the specific date of transaction isn't important.

I am a Peter Lunch follower, but I don't take the institutional ownership too seriously.