Based on 24 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 XYF 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 55% of 3.0Y high
55% of all-time peak
Only 24 funds hold XYF today versus a peak of 44 funds at 2025 Q4 — just 55% 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 — 27% fewer funds vs a year ago
fund count last 6Q
9 fewer hedge funds hold XYF compared to a year ago (-27% decline). When institutions consistently reduce their exposure, it's worth exploring the underlying fundamental reasons driving them away.
🔴
Heavy selling pressure — only 38% buying
13 buying21 selling
Last quarter: 21 funds sold vs only 13 buyers. This is widespread institutional distribution — not a few funds rebalancing, but a broad exit. High conviction bearish signal.
➡️
Steady new buyers — ~7 new funds per quarter
new funds entering per quarter
Funds opening this position for the first time: 19 → 13 → 5 → 7. A stable flow of new institutional buyers suggests ongoing interest without signs of either acceleration or slowdown.
📌
Mixed — 33% long-term, 29% new
■ 33% conviction (2yr+)
■ 38% medium
■ 29% new
Of the 24 current holders: 8 (33%) held >2 years, 9 held 1–2 years, and 7 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.
💰
Price up while funds trimmed (-19% value, -36% shares)
Last quarter: total value of institutional XYF holdings rose -19% even though funds reduced share count by 36%. The stock price increased enough to offset the selling. Institutions are quietly trimming into price strength — watch for rotation.
⚠️
Saturation — most institutions already know this story
19 → 19 → 13 → 5 → 7 new funds/Q
New funds entering each quarter: 19 → 13 → 5 → 7. 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 — 58% veterans vs 38% newcomers
■ 58% veterans
■ 4% 1-2yr
■ 38% new
Entry-cohort mix of 24 holders: 14 (58%) are 2+ year veterans, 1 entered 1–2 years ago, and 9 (38%) joined within the past year. A veteran-weighted cap table skews toward institutional memory over fresh momentum.
🏆
Elite ownership — 54% AUM from top-100 funds
54% from top-100 AUM funds
10 of 24 holders are among the 100 largest funds by AUM, controlling 54% of total institutional value in XYF. When the biggest players dominate the cap table, it signifies deep institutional support — since mega-funds deploy the most rigorous due diligence and capital.
Exit risk score 2.1/10 — low institutional crowding. Ownership is below peak levels, holder base is relatively sticky, and buying momentum is positive.