Institutional Position Shift Skill
Data Dependencies and Pre-execution Requirements
It is recommended to use Wind's
to obtain underlying data. Before execution, check whether
is already available locally; if not, prompt the user to install it:
bash
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee Mirror (Domestic)
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
Skill Positioning
This skill is used to analyze changes in institutional holdings, answering questions such as "Which directions are obviously overweighted or underweighted by institutions, what consensus do these changes reflect, whether it is high-conviction buying or passive adjustment, and what do these mean for the subsequent market and individual stocks". The focus of the output is not simply comparing shareholding quantities, but interpreting the preference migration and potential impacts behind the changes in holdings.
Execution Process
Step 1: Confirm Sample Scope, Reporting Period and Interpretation Caliber
First clarify the sample and boundaries of this study:
- Which type of institutions are being observed
- Whether it covers a single stock, an industry, or a larger stock pool
- Which reporting period it corresponds to
- Whether the user cares more about changes in institutional consensus, or the actions of several core institutions
At the same time, remind users: Institutional holding disclosures usually have a time lag, and conclusions should be interpreted in combination with this point.
Step 2: Sort Out the Overall Characteristics of Holding Changes
First judge from the overall perspective:
- Which industries or styles are concentratedly overweighted
- Which directions are systematically underweighted
- Whether institutional holdings are more concentrated or dispersed
- Whether the original popular directions are still being strengthened, or have begun to loosen
The goal of this stage is to first clarify the general direction.
Step 3: Disassemble Key Companies and Representative Changes
Further focus on the most representative changes in holdings:
- Which companies are obviously increased holdings
- Which companies are obviously reduced holdings
- Which changes come from the continued increase of original core positions
- Which changes reflect institutions shifting from old main lines to new main lines
Priority should be given to selecting samples that can represent changes in consensus, rather than mechanically listing all names.
Step 4: Distinguish High-Conviction Position Adjustments from Passive Changes
Changes in institutional holdings do not all have the same meaning, and further judgment is required:
- Whether it is actively expressing opinions, or passively changing due to price fluctuations, benchmark adjustments or liquidity reasons
- Whether buying is accompanied by higher concentration
- Whether selling represents a weakening of views, or phased realization
- Whether there is increased divergence among institutions rather than a single consensus strengthening
Step 5: Refine Implications for Industries, Themes and Individual Stocks
Focusing on the results of position adjustment, explain:
- Which industries or themes are gaining institutional consensus support
- Which companies may receive valuation and liquidity support due to institutional buying
- How to assess the risks if institutions withdraw from certain companies
- Which operating or market signals are needed to verify whether institutional judgments are correct in the follow-up
Step 6: Form the Institutional Position Adjustment Insight Draft
The final output should help users understand where institutional consensus is moving, and how to view these disclosed information. Only retain holding changes, preference interpretations, limitation explanations and verification frameworks in the main text.
Output Structure
Institutional Position Adjustment Insights ({Report Period})
I. 30-Second Conclusion
- Institutional Preference Direction This Period: {Content}
- Most Obvious Overweight Clues: {Content}
- Most Obvious Underweight Clues: {Content}
- Current Implication: {Consensus Strengthening / Increased Divergence / Structural Switch}
II. Overall Holding Changes
| Dimension | Current Performance | Judgment |
|---|
| Industry Level | {Content} | {Judgment} |
| Style Level | {Content} | {Judgment} |
| Concentration Change | {Content} | {Judgment} |
III. Key Company Changes
- Companies with Obvious Increased Holdings: {Content}
- Companies with Obvious Reduced Holdings: {Content}
- Most Representative Position Adjustment Actions: {Content}
IV. Judgment on Position Adjustment Nature
- High-Conviction Active Position Adjustment: {Content}
- Possible Passive Changes: {Content}
- Points of Institutional Divergence: {Content}
V. Market Implications and Risk Warnings
- Implications for Industries/Themes: {Content}
- Implications for Individual Stocks: {Content}
- Interpretation Limitations: {Content}
VI. Follow-up Observation List
- {Observation Point 1}
- {Observation Point 2}
- {Observation Point 3}
Quality Requirements
- Institutional holding analysis must remind of disclosure lag, avoiding directly treating historical holdings as current actions.
- Distinguish between active high-conviction position adjustments and passive changes to improve interpretation credibility.
- Cover three levels: industry, style and key individual stocks at the same time.
- If there is obvious divergence among institutions, it should be clearly stated instead of forcibly summarizing it as a consistent consensus.
- The output should help users understand the migration of institutional preferences, rather than staying at listing shareholding names.