>Institutional ownership does convey relevant information in regards to valuation, because it tells you who bought and didn't later sell, and therefore who contributed net buy flow over the last year.
Institutional ownership merely means (shares held by institutions)/(total shares available). It does not signify anything more, and valuation cannot be inferred from such information. Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing, but it's a slippery slope.
Anyhow pricing and valuation is all dictated by trading activity. And prices can change massively even with little to no institutional ownernship % or changes thereof.
>If portfolio % drops but shares held remained constant, that means they largely stopped trading NNDM and increased the size of their other (non-NNDM) holdings
You are correct, I mismatched and incorrectly worded what I meant.
>Also, that link shows they traded only a few million in volume in March in NNDM, but total NNDM volume over that month was in the hundreds of millions
What I meant to show here was this was the period of obvious dilution. Look at the months prior to march and see the strong correlation to ARK trading and price rise. There were also offerings being made when ARK was buying, but look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell when dilution continued.
>Why do you say this? If they do an at-the-market offerring and sell it on-market primarily to retail bids, the retail ownership % will increase proportionally.
Again poorly worded on my part. I meant can reduce Institutional Ownership %...
Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. Using your very argument, if recent institutional ownership has dropped in March, it wouldn't go against the argument that I'm making that NNDM's price rise (as in starting from last years price at ~$1.58 in September) till recently, was largely fueled by ARK activity.
