Sorry mate, I was just repeating what others had said before me...

Sorry mate, I was just repeating what others had said before me to maintain flow, RE "Large funds".

As you put it, the most important holders are the 'insiders', the directors/executives. I feel this way too, I will put more weight in what they choose to do compared to what other the top 20 holders choose to do. In this instance the director/executive shares has not been reduced. There's no 'green flags', but no 'red flags' either. Is this a good approach? Who knows. It makes sense to me though.

I do see a handful of large individuals are no longer in the T20, and the barrier to entry is lower too which could be viewed as T20 holders losing confidence. How much weight somebody chooses to put on this is up to them.

In a general sense, following the top 20 can be useful if you are familiar with the people/companies in there. Familiar in the sense that you trust their judgement, you know where they invest, you know why they invest, etc. If you have a deep enough understanding then you can probably infer a lot by observing what they decide to buy and sell. I've tried to do this by following people with good track records who are also T20 holders (with mixed results). I'm sure some people have developed a strong sense for this and found success. Problem is that if you don't know who they are, and you don't know what drives their decisions, then it's all arbitrary knowledge. Without the who and why the information is not useful Shmah.


When already understanding that the risk is high, I don't these T20 shuffles as an indicator that anything is fundamentally wrong. It just reaffirms the risk is real. For some people it may have some as a surprise, especially those who choose to see this investment as a sure-thing, but that's on them.