Why are stocks having less institutional investors a “good thing”?
"Institutional investors are the ""elephant"" in the room. When they ""sneeze,"" everyone else ""catches cold."" They're fine, if they're buying after YOU do. They're not bad, if you want to buy after they sell en masse. But when you read about moves of 10 percent, 15 percent or more in a single day, it's because a bunch of institutional investors all decided to do the same thing on the same day.  That's more volatility than most people can stomach. Fewer institutional investors in a stock mean fewer chances of those things happening." "It's not necessarily bad but it can cause the stock price to become a lot more volatile. Depends on which side of the bet you're on ;) Suppose a hedge fund manager thinks a company is poorly run. He may buy a ton of shares so that he can get rid of the current CEO and replace it with his/her own. For the hedge fund and others long on the stock, this is good. Those who are trading options or using some short-term strategies could get screwed because of the sudden volatility.  My next point is related to the above. What is the intrinsic value of a stock? The current price of a stock is the equilibrium of all investor's perception of the stock's value. Professionals make up a value for a stock using models such as DCF. Once they do so they trade based on what they believe the value of the stock is. You might calculate a stock is worth 70 and I believe it's 80 so the stock price is going to fluctuate a bit but it should keep within that range (assuming we're the only investors). Then comes a hedge fund manager, say Carl Icahn, and discloses a stake in our stock. ""Wow, the stock must be really valuable!"" Everyone starts buying this stock so up it goes to 90, simply because the guy who seems to know what he's doing bought it. The point here is that now it's not trading based on intrinsic value, now it's purely psychological. Ie. it's now a momentum stock, which you have no idea when it'll crash. Look at Tesla, Netflix, or just google momentum stocks. All the big crashes in stock prices happen when these big funds unload their stocks. A surge in supply will cut the price. The problem is you can't predict when some fund manager will decide to sell some stake of his.  Tying everything together is liquidity. The more liquid a stock is, the easier it is to obtain and the less volatile it is. The more people playing the game, with not too big shares of stock, the faster the price will converge to some equilibrium and with less volatility. Institutional investors take away liquidity." Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers.  In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss. Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed. Let’s turn this round. Now what if the only people willing to own part of company are doing it due to the expectation that they will make money in the short term form the company…. Generally speaking, having more institutional investors is a good sign. Of course there are many types of institutions.  Normally we are thinking of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, and hedge funds.  They may not all have the same implications.  Hedge funds, in particular, are out to make a buck with very little restriction on how they do it.  They may buy an undervalued stock and then use their voting power to improve the company or they may do something more questionable, like pump up the stock price and then sell at the high, causing volatility.  The people you are referring to may be thinking of something like the latter. Those concerns are generally small when compared with the known positives of institutional ownership.
There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio.  You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters.  The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere.  As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises.  Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere. "Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a ""hot"" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers.  However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this." Coolness - It's not only a matter of staying calm when being up or down. You must keep yourself from chasing a stock that appears to be running away. Or from betting all your money that something(like say a crash) will happen tomorrow because that would be great for you. Use your head not your heart. Empathy - You need to understand what other speculators, investors, institutions and algorithms are going to do when there is a new development or technical signal. And why. For publicly traded corporations, fundamentals and technical indicators only have the value that people(and their algorithms) choose to assign to them at that particular moment. And every stock has a different population trading it. There is no rule of thumb. Patience - To trade successfully, you must avoid trading at all costs. Heh. If you can't find any good trade to do, don't open positions in order to meet your targets, buy a new smartphone, or to fight boredom. Diligence - If your strategy relies on tight stops, don't make exceptions. If your strategy relies on position sizing, don't close when you are a few points down. Luck - In the end almost every trade can turn against you very badly. You must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. You can't buy luck, or get luckier, but you can attempt to stack probabilities: diversify, buy options to insure your positions, reduce holding time, avoid known volatility events, etc. "The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis.  That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change.  However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket.  So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way.  This means the demand for each stock is the same.  No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves.  The same for the high performer.  The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles.  Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the ""worst-case scenario"" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt.  You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue.  One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets.  The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is.  There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics.  If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it.  Some might buy it.  It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds.  They have a vested interest in attacking passive management." Of course. The fact that it's such a generic concern should be taken for granted - that's why I think the article focuses on it too much. Everybody knows that losing a lot of executives is bad news, even if there was no line in the 10-K at all. So I'd have preferred to see less about that and more information on what it could mean for this company specifically. Funds can't limit themselves to a small number of stocks without also limiting themselves to a small amount of total investment. I think 25 companies is too small to be practical from their point of view. &gt; related to management compensation, public disclosures, investor liquidity, and portfolio concentration and use of leverage.  Could you discuss why the lack of restrictions on these subjects would make hedge funds more attractive to wealthy investors as opposed to mutual funds? Most larger corporations need to focus on the bottom line to appease their current and prospective investors. It can actually be quite the vicious cycle, and why people would be better off as a whole if we had more mom and pop stores.