Based on 19 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 BNZIW 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 49% of 3.0Y high
49% of all-time peak
Only 19 funds hold BNZIW today versus a peak of 39 funds at 2023 Q4 — just 49% 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 — 24% fewer funds vs a year ago
fund count last 6Q
6 fewer hedge funds hold BNZIW compared to a year ago (-24% decline). When institutions consistently reduce their exposure, it's worth exploring the underlying fundamental reasons driving them away.
🟠
More sellers than buyers — 43% buying
3 buying4 selling
Last quarter: 4 funds reduced or exited vs 3 that bought or added. When more than half of active funds are selling, it's a caution flag — especially if the stock price hasn't moved down yet.
➡️
Steady new buyers — ~1 new funds per quarter
new funds entering per quarter
Funds opening this position for the first time: 2 → 2 → 1 → 1. A stable flow of new institutional buyers suggests ongoing interest without signs of either acceleration or slowdown.
🔒
79% of holders stayed for 2+ years
■ 79% conviction (2yr+)
■ 16% medium
■ 5% new
15 out of 19 hedge funds have held BNZIW 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.
💎
Buying through price weakness — shares -4%, value -30%
Last quarter: funds added -4% more shares while total portfolio value only changed -30%. Institutions were buying while the price was falling — a high-conviction accumulation signal. They're deliberately loading up on the dip.
⚠️
Saturation — most institutions already know this story
1 → 2 → 2 → 1 → 1 new funds/Q
New funds entering each quarter: 2 → 2 → 1 → 1. 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 — 79% veterans vs 16% newcomers
■ 79% veterans
■ 5% 1-2yr
■ 16% new
Entry-cohort mix of 19 holders: 15 (79%) are 2+ year veterans, 1 entered 1–2 years ago, and 3 (16%) joined within the past year. A veteran-weighted cap table skews toward institutional memory over fresh momentum.
📋
Smaller funds dominant — 6% AUM from top-100
6% from top-100 AUM funds
1 of 18 holders rank in the top 100 by AUM, but together hold only 6% of total institutional value. The stock is held primarily by smaller and mid-sized funds.
Exit risk score 1.0/10 — low institutional crowding. Ownership is below peak levels, holder base is relatively sticky, and buying momentum is positive.