Based on 16 hedge funds · latest filing: 2026 Q2 · updated quarterly
📉
Selling streak — 2 quarters in a row
For 2 consecutive quarters, more hedge funds reduced or closed their PSMJ positions than added to them. Sustained institutional selling is a meaningful warning sign — these are professionals with deep research teams collectively deciding to exit.
🔻
Below peak — only 64% of 3.0Y high
64% of all-time peak
Only 16 funds hold PSMJ today versus a peak of 25 funds at 2025 Q4 — just 64% of the maximum. Low institutional ownership can mean the stock is out of favor, but it also means there's a large pool of potential buyers if sentiment turns.
📉
Outflows — 30% fewer funds vs a year ago
fund count last 6Q
7 fewer hedge funds hold PSMJ compared to a year ago (-30% decline). When institutions consistently reduce their exposure, it's worth exploring the underlying fundamental reasons driving them away.
🔴
Heavy selling pressure — only 37% buying
7 buying12 selling
Last quarter: 12 funds sold vs only 7 buyers. This is widespread institutional distribution — not a few funds rebalancing, but a broad exit. High conviction bearish signal.
➡️
Steady new buyers — ~0 new funds per quarter
new funds entering per quarter
Funds opening this position for the first time: 6 → 5 → 1 → 0. A stable flow of new institutional buyers suggests ongoing interest without signs of either acceleration or slowdown.
🔒
69% of holders stayed for 2+ years
■ 69% conviction (2yr+)
■ 25% medium
■ 6% new
11 out of 16 hedge funds have held PSMJ for over 2 years without selling. Long-term investors are generally harder to shake out during market stress, creating a stable ownership base that limits the risk of sudden capitulation.
💎
Buying through price weakness — shares +4%, value -42%
Last quarter: funds added +4% more shares while total portfolio value only changed -42%. Institutions were buying while the price was falling — a high-conviction accumulation signal. They're deliberately loading up on the dip.
⚠️
Saturation — most institutions already know this story
1 → 6 → 5 → 1 → 0 new funds/Q
New funds entering each quarter: 6 → 5 → 1 → 0. Far fewer institutions are entering now vs. a year ago. When the pool of potential new buyers shrinks this fast, future price support from institutional inflows weakens significantly.
🏛️
Veteran-anchored — 62% veterans vs 12% newcomers
■ 62% veterans
■ 25% 1-2yr
■ 12% new
Entry-cohort mix of 16 holders: 10 (62%) are 2+ year veterans, 4 entered 1–2 years ago, and 2 (12%) joined within the past year. A veteran-weighted cap table skews toward institutional memory over fresh momentum.
📋
Smaller funds dominant — 2% AUM from top-100
2% from top-100 AUM funds
1 of 16 holders rank in the top 100 by AUM, but together hold only 2% of total institutional value. The stock is held primarily by smaller and mid-sized funds.
Exit risk score 2.0/10 — low institutional crowding. Ownership is below peak levels, holder base is relatively sticky, and buying momentum is positive.