How is it "incredibly misleading"? The instos that have filed and are, therefore, able to be tracked, have nevertheless proceeded to double their holdings over the last 3 months.
Fact.
Where is the misrepresentation?
If anything, the only thing you can complain of as not being a true representation of the big picture is that there are actually FAR MORE instos that are invested in BRN then this data is capable of showing - that's hardly a negative, lol, but thank you very much for making such a fine point of it in your reply and, correspondingly, making my argument for me by reinforcing the premise of my initial post.
I don't care much for football, but I'm pretty sure you've just kicked what's called an "own goal", yeah?
So, what you're essentially saying is that the data I've presented is misleading because there are even MORE institutional investors that are betting on BRN than what my source is showing?
Very kind of you to assist in pointing this out and validating the thesis of my post.
I'm the first to admit that my commentary is amateur, but the frenzied buying sentiment of the institutional holders we're seeing here is certainly not based on amateur commentary and views derived from such amateur research.
I would suggest that anyone reading this post should not follow my *amateur* lead in my investment strategies when they would be far better served following the lead of the *professional* Institutional investors. When it comes to BRN the professional instos have doubled their position over the last 12 weeks.
Read into that whatever you choose, but they're not amateurs and right now they are demonstrating a very clear bullish position on BRN that conflicts with the doom and gloom pessimistic approach of yourself, The Dean, Shareman, Lies & Plooto et al. Fact. Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make the data, I just presented it for consideration.
So, agreed, some of the institutional investors may well indeed be obliged to hold BRN due to their inclusion on the relevant index, but the recent accumulation on the part of the instos in the last 3 months is entirely discretionary, because BRN has occupied the index for a year now.
This accumulation activity on the part of the registered instos in doubling their holdings at a time when you lot are forecasting BRN departing the index doesn't make any sense whatsoever when your argument is that they were only holding BRN over the last 12 months because they were forced to, as passive funds.
That may be true, but its also true that they're not forced to double their holdings, yet that's what (the instos that we can monitor) have been doing in the last 12 weeks. Fact. That increased accumulation is discretionary and there must be a reason behind it.
Expand
(20min delay)