- Australia
- /
- Metals and Mining
- /
- ASX:FUN
Do Institutions Own Frontier Resources Limited (ASX:FNT) Shares?
Every investor in Frontier Resources Limited (ASX:FNT) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. Generally speaking, as a company grows, institutions will increase their ownership. Conversely, insiders often decrease their ownership over time. I generally like to see some degree of insider ownership, even if only a little. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb said, 'Don’t tell me what you think, tell me what you have in your portfolio.'
Frontier Resources is a smaller company with a market capitalization of AU$5.9m, so it may still be flying under the radar of many institutional investors. In the chart below below, we can see that institutions are noticeable on the share registry. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholder can tell us about FNT.
Check out our latest analysis for Frontier Resources
What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Frontier Resources?
Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.
Frontier Resources already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own 9.6% of the company. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at Frontier Resources's earnings history, below. Of course, the future is what really matters.
We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Frontier Resources. As far I can tell there isn't analyst coverage of the company, so it is probably flying under the radar.
Insider Ownership Of Frontier Resources
The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it.
Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group.
Our most recent data indicates that insiders own a reasonable proportion of Frontier Resources Limited. Insiders have a AU$666k stake in this AU$5.9m business. It is great to see insiders so invested in the business. It might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying recently.
General Public Ownership
The general public, who are mostly retail investors, collectively hold 66% of Frontier Resources shares. With this size of ownership, retail investors can collectively play a role in decisions that affect shareholder returns, such as dividend policies and the appointment of directors. They can also exercise the power to decline an acquisition or merger that may not improve profitability.
Private Company Ownership
It seems that Private Companies own 13%, of the FNT stock. Private companies may be related parties. Sometimes insiders have an interest in a public company through a holding in a private company, rather than in their own capacity as an individual. While it's hard to draw any broad stroke conclusions, it is worth noting as an area for further research.
Next Steps:
While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important.
I like to dive deeper into how a company has performed in the past. You can find historic revenue and earnings in this detailed graph.
Of course, you might find a fantastic investment by looking elsewhere. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies.
NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures.
We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material.
If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned. Thank you for reading.
A landmark settlement is meant to punish Meta (META). If the 1998 tobacco deal is any guide, it might protect it.

Any moat with an opt-out clause for your competitors is just a fence around your own garden.
Worth looking at what previous legal action actually did to Meta rather than reaching for tobacco. The FTC's record five billion dollar privacy fine in 2019 was met with the stock rising, because it came in below fears and removed an open question. GDPR was designed to constrain large platforms and increased their share of the European ad market, because compliance cost fell hardest on small intermediaries. The FTC's antitrust case, the one that could genuinely have broken the company up, was decided in Meta's favour last November. The only thing that ever meaningfully hurt the business was Apple changing a tracking default, and Meta out-spent that too, while the ad-tech firms that could not afford to rebuild disappeared. The pattern is not that Meta survives regulation. It is that regulation keeps costing its smaller competitors more.
Andrew LeggetGreat earnings season, but are the earnings real?

About ASX:FUN
Fortuna Metals
Explores and evaluates mineral projects in Malawi and Australia.
Flawless balance sheet with slight risk.