Is a fund with a high proportion of institutions good?
A fund with a high proportion of institutions is not necessarily a good fund, because the proportion held by institutions is not necessarily completely related to the growth of fund net value. But generally speaking, if there are several large institutions in a fund, such as social security and annuity, the increase will not be bad, and it will attract more investors and funds. However, this does not mean that as long as there are institutions in the fund, it is worth buying. These are two different things. Institutional shareholding is equivalent to icing on the cake.
According to the survey and statistics, in 20 18, the net value of the fund with higher institutional shareholding ratio increased better, but in 2020, it became a fund with lower institutional shareholding ratio, and its net value increased better. It can be seen that whether the fund is good or not and whether it can rise in the later period does not mean that there is such a simple institutional shareholding. The institutional shareholding ratio can not fully represent the quality of the fund, nor can it be used as the only criterion for whether the fund makes money.
Although institutions may not hold good funds, the investment style of funds with higher proportion of institutions may be more stable. Steady style is a good thing. If the proportion of institutions is too high, there may be some risks. If the institution redeems in a large amount, it may have a certain impact on the performance of the fund.
After reading the above introduction, I believe that everyone can have a better understanding of the funding problem with a high proportion of institutions. When buying a fund, the focus is not on whether it is owned by an institution, but on the investment ability and historical performance of its fund manager. More importantly, it is necessary to analyze the actual situation and choose the fund that suits you.