In This Article:
If you want to know who really controls Chargeurs SA (EPA:CRI), then you’ll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. Institutions often own shares in more established companies, while it’s not unusual to see insiders own a fair bit of smaller companies.
Chargeurs is not a large company by global standards. It has a market capitalization of €436m, which means it wouldn’t have the attention of many institutional investors. Our analysis of the ownership of the company, below, shows that institutional investors have bought into the company. Let’s delve deeper into each type of owner, to discover more about CRI.
Check out our latest analysis for Chargeurs
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Chargeurs?
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.
Chargeurs already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own 39% of the company. 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. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It’s therefore worth looking at Chargeurs’s earnings history, below. Of course, the future is what really matters.
We note that hedge funds don’t have a meaningful investment in Chargeurs. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.
Insider Ownership Of Chargeurs
The definition of company insiders can be subjective, and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board; and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board, themselves.
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 note our data does not show any board members holding shares, personally. Given we are not picking up on insider ownership, we may have missing data. Therefore, it would be interesting to assess the CEO compensation and tenure, here.
General Public Ownership
With a 34% ownership, the general public have some degree of sway over CRI. 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.