Every investor in Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc. (NASDAQ:MNMD) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. The group holding the most number of shares in the company, around 41% to be precise, is retail investors. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
Retail investors gained the most after market cap touched US$601m last week, while institutions who own 40% also benefitted.
In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Mind Medicine (MindMed).
View our latest analysis for Mind Medicine (MindMed)
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.
As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Mind Medicine (MindMed). 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 Mind Medicine (MindMed)'s historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story.
It would appear that 9.7% of Mind Medicine (MindMed) shares are controlled by hedge funds. That's interesting, because hedge funds can be quite active and activist. Many look for medium term catalysts that will drive the share price higher. Commodore Capital LP is currently the company's largest shareholder with 9.7% of shares outstanding. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders, hold 8.3% and 7.7%, of the shares outstanding, respectively.
A closer look at our ownership figures suggests that the top 15 shareholders have a combined ownership of 51% implying that no single shareholder has a majority.
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. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily.
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.
Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group.
We can see that insiders own shares in Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc.. As individuals, the insiders collectively own US$6.1m worth of the US$601m company. This shows at least some alignment. You can click here to see if those insiders have been buying or selling.
The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 41% stake in Mind Medicine (MindMed). This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders.
Private equity firms hold a 8.3% stake in Mind Medicine (MindMed). This suggests they can be influential in key policy decisions. Some might like this, because private equity are sometimes activists who hold management accountable. But other times, private equity is selling out, having taking the company public.
It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Mind Medicine (MindMed) better, we need to consider many other factors. Take risks for example - Mind Medicine (MindMed) has 3 warning signs (and 2 which can't be ignored) we think you should know about.
But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future.
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.
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.
免責聲明:投資有風險,本文並非投資建議,以上內容不應被視為任何金融產品的購買或出售要約、建議或邀請,作者或其他用戶的任何相關討論、評論或帖子也不應被視為此類內容。本文僅供一般參考,不考慮您的個人投資目標、財務狀況或需求。TTM對信息的準確性和完整性不承擔任何責任或保證,投資者應自行研究並在投資前尋求專業建議。