Based on 23 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 ALIZY positions than added to them. Sustained institutional selling is a meaningful warning sign — these are professionals with deep research teams collectively deciding to exit.
📊
High ownership — 82% of 3.0Y peak
82% of all-time peak
23 funds currently hold this stock — 82% of the 3.0-year high of 28 funds (reached 2025 Q4). Ownership is elevated but not yet at maximum concentration. Room to grow, but watch if the trend reverses.
📶
Steady growth — +5% more funds vs a year ago
fund count last 6Q
+1 new funds entered over the past year (+5% YoY). Gradual, steady growth in institutional ownership is generally a healthy signal — not a speculative rush, but consistent conviction.
🟢
More buyers than sellers — 67% buying
14 buying7 selling
Last quarter: 14 funds were net buyers (3 opened a brand new position + 11 added to an existing one). Only 7 were sellers (3 trimmed + 4 sold completely). A clear majority buying is a strong confirmation signal.
➡️
Steady new buyers — ~3 new funds per quarter
new funds entering per quarter
Funds opening this position for the first time: 4 → 7 → 2 → 3. A stable flow of new institutional buyers suggests ongoing interest without signs of either acceleration or slowdown.
🔒
57% of holders stayed for 2+ years
■ 57% conviction (2yr+)
■ 22% medium
■ 22% new
13 out of 23 hedge funds have held ALIZY for over 2 years without selling. Long-term investors are generally harder to shake out during market stress, creating a stable ownership base that limits the risk of sudden capitulation.
💰
Value +24% but shares only +3% — price-driven
Last quarter: the total dollar value of institutional holdings rose +24%, but actual share count only changed +3%. The gap is explained by the stock's price rising — not new buying. Strong value growth with weak share growth means the rally is price momentum, not fresh institutional demand.
⚠️
Saturation — most institutions already know this story
3 → 4 → 7 → 2 → 3 new funds/Q
New funds entering each quarter: 4 → 7 → 2 → 3. 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 — 57% veterans vs 26% newcomers
■ 57% veterans
■ 17% 1-2yr
■ 26% new
Entry-cohort mix of 23 holders: 13 (57%) are 2+ year veterans, 4 entered 1–2 years ago, and 6 (26%) joined within the past year. A veteran-weighted cap table skews toward institutional memory over fresh momentum.
✅
Strong quality — 35% AUM from major funds
35% from top-100 AUM funds
2 of 23 holders rank in the top 100 by AUM, accounting for 35% of total institutional value held. A meaningful share of the ownership value comes from the most well-resourced institutions.
Exit risk score 2.6/10 — low institutional crowding. Ownership is below peak levels, holder base is relatively sticky, and buying momentum is positive.