Kemble, OLDTRADER: Scott McNeally at SUNW has gotten a lot of mileage out of his statement, when asked if he's been selling any of his own stock: "haven't sold a single SUNW share..." (a direct quote during an interview on CNBC.)
However, the interviewer failed to point out that insider ownership at SUNW sits at 3%, with Scott McNeally owning an overall pittance. Dell's insider ownership sits close to 25% (most of that being Michael Dell and his family's).
So, although the press has made a big deal out of McNeally not selling any shares, they've not made a proper comparison to total shares owned relative to Micheal Dell.
Of course McNeally hasn't sold shares, he owns a pittance of SUNW's total issue - choosing instead to realize a greater ownership through excercisable options.
Despite these factors, analysts have continued to recommend SUNW. They're reviewing other factors beside insider ownership. Institutional ownership at SUNW is close to 60%, while at Dell it sits around 50%. 5% of that 10% difference between Dell vs. SUNW, or 129 million shares, is probably the difference bw Dell's price being at $39 1/2 and $55. So, a majority of share price failure remains with the institutions. Until institutions begin to reinvent the Dell model in their own minds, Dell's price remains 1/2 that of SUNW's.
Engemann tends to be a leader among large growth caps (being a manager that is about 35 years older than the average mutual fund manager). His firm recently added Dell to their model portfolio. He's never invested in Dell before which I find very interesting.
Relative to SUNW, insider ownership of stock obviously says little in regard to share price movement.
Yet, with Dell, shareholders have continued to make a big deal about MD pairing his ownership over the years, yet remaining the 2nd single largest shareholder of a publically traded company, behind Gates, of the top 100 Black List.
If you're going to speak of CEOs selling shares, let's do a comparative analysis. |
