Based on 13 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 QTJA 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 68% of 3.0Y high
68% of all-time peak
Only 13 funds hold QTJA today versus a peak of 19 funds at 2024 Q4 — just 68% 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 — 28% fewer funds vs a year ago
fund count last 6Q
5 fewer hedge funds hold QTJA compared to a year ago (-28% decline). When institutions consistently reduce their exposure, it's worth exploring the underlying fundamental reasons driving them away.
🟡
Slight buying edge — 56% buying
5 buying4 selling
Last quarter: 5 funds bought or added vs 4 that reduced or exited. It's nearly a 50/50 split — some institutions are convinced, others are taking profits. This mixed picture is normal near price highs.
➡️
Steady new buyers — ~2 new funds per quarter
new funds entering per quarter
Funds opening this position for the first time: 1 → 3 → 2 → 2. A stable flow of new institutional buyers suggests ongoing interest without signs of either acceleration or slowdown.
📌
Mixed — 38% long-term, 23% new
■ 38% conviction (2yr+)
■ 38% medium
■ 23% new
Of the 13 current holders: 5 (38%) held >2 years, 5 held 1–2 years, and 3 entered in the last year. A mixed base — the stock has long-term believers but also recent buyers who haven't been tested by a downturn yet.
➡️
Steady discovery — ~2 new funds/quarter
5 → 1 → 3 → 2 → 2 new funds/Q
New funds entering each quarter: 1 → 3 → 2 → 2. Consistent flow of new institutional buyers without clear acceleration or slowdown.
📊
Mixed cohorts — 31% veterans, 31% new entrants
■ 31% veterans
■ 38% 1-2yr
■ 31% new
Of 13 current holders: 4 (31%) held 2+ years, 5 held 1–2 years, 4 (31%) entered in the past year. Balanced distribution — some institutional memory, some recent momentum buyers.
📋
Smaller funds dominant — 0% AUM from top-100
0% from top-100 AUM funds
0 of 13 holders rank in the top 100 by AUM, but together hold only 0% 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.