What are institutional investors?
"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for ""institutions"" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth.  Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed." FINRA defines institutional investors as:   Institutional investors include banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisors, a person or entity with assets of at least $50 million, government entities, employee benefit plans and qualified plans with at least 100 participants, FINRA member firms and registered persons, and a person acting solely on behalf of an institutional investor.  From: http://www.finra.org/industry/issues/faq-advertising  Based on Rules 2210(a)(4) and 4512(c).  Institutional investors are expected to understand market risks and as a result, disclosure requirements are much lower (perhaps no SEC filings and no prospectus).
Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market. "In the article itself, it's stated:  *""Yale University, where we work, has a de minimis exposure to IEX through an investment by one of the university’s external managers.""*  I mean, that's pretty straightforward to me.  I promise you that Yale is also indirectly invested in every single public exchange out there." The role of business investors differs greatly within different organisations. If you are starting a business or already have a small business, business investors can be a key tool to get your business of the ground. Business investors give money to small businesses or start-ups in exchange for ownership in a part of the company. "The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times.  At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the ""end"") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date.  At the ""end"" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment..." Little investors rarely have a say in it.  If you have direct control over routing, that's one thing (some platforms allow it).  But if you're a fund investor or a pension beneficiary, it's completely out of your hands.    Re:  The author.  One of them - [David Swensen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swensen) - is actually the chief investment officer at Yale University.  I'm pretty sure he has a clue. Yep, you have it pretty much right.   The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price.   Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person. "First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent,  this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the ""underclass"" and the ""upperclass"". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like." "For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the ""SEC filings"" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages." &gt; Also the institutional investor only has the advantage of leverage  And, you know, capital, better data, better technical knowledge, and better just about everything else. It's the same reason why the average investor is better off buying a blue-chip stock while a buy-side guy buys more complex financial products. "1) When it says ""an investment or mutual fund"", is a mutual fund not   an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions  mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains.    2) When it says ""In terms of stocks"", why does it only mention   distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says ""In terms of mutual funds"", it says about ""the   reinvestment of distributions and dividends"". Does ""distributions"" not   include distributions of ""dividends""? why does it mention   ""distributions"" parallel to ""dividends""? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to   capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well." You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder. "**David F. Swensen**  David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985.  Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the ""Endowment Model."" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the ""Swensen Approach"" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24" "private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment.  This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this ""index ETF parasitism"" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue.   Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies." Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation.   In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically.   The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined. Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession.  I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market.  Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession.   Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate.  With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.