If you want to know who really controls Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited (NZSE:RBD), 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 private equity firms with 75% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn).
And individual investors on the other hand have a 17% ownership in the company.
Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Restaurant Brands New Zealand.
Check out our latest analysis for Restaurant Brands New Zealand
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.
As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Restaurant Brands New Zealand. 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. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Restaurant Brands New Zealand, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.
Restaurant Brands New Zealand is not owned by hedge funds. Finaccess Capital is currently the largest shareholder, with 75% of shares outstanding. This essentially means that they have extensive influence, if not outright control, over the future of the corporation. With 3.4% and 2.0% of the shares outstanding respectively, Fidelity International Ltd and Milford Asset Management, LTD are the second and third largest shareholders.
While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. There is some analyst coverage of the stock, but it could still become more well known, with time.
The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. 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.
Our information suggests that Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited insiders own under 1% of the company. It appears that the board holds about NZ$2.0m worth of stock. This compares to a market capitalization of NZ$494m. We generally like to see a board more invested. However it might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying.
The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 17% stake in Restaurant Brands New Zealand. 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.
Private equity firms hold a 75% stake in Restaurant Brands New Zealand. This suggests they can be influential in key policy decisions. Some investors might be encouraged by this, since private equity are sometimes able to encourage strategies that help the market see the value in the company. Alternatively, those holders might be exiting the investment after taking it public.
I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 1 warning sign with Restaurant Brands New Zealand , and understanding them should be part of your investment process.
If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts.
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.
Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.