Data dependencies and execution prerequisites
It is recommended to use Wind wind-mcp-skill to obtain the underlying data. Before execution, first check whether wind-mcp-skillis already available locally; if not, prompt the user to install:
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee 镜像（国内）
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 "which directions are clearly being overweighted or underweighted by institutions, what consensus these changes reflect, whether they are high-conviction additions or passive adjustments, and what they mean for the subsequent market and individual stocks." The output focus is not a simple comparison of share counts, but an explanation of the preference shifts and potential impacts behind changes in holdings.
Execution workflow
Step 1: Confirm the sample scope, reporting period, and interpretation criteria
First clarify the sample and boundaries of this research:
- Which type of institution is being observed
- Whether it covers a single stock, an industry, or a larger stock pool
- Which reporting period it corresponds to
- Whether the user is more concerned about changes in institutional consensus or the actions of a few core institutions
At the same time, users should be reminded that institutional holdings disclosures usually have a time lag, and conclusions should be interpreted with this in mind.
Step 2: Sort out the overall characteristics of changes in holdings
First make an overall judgment:
- Which industries or styles are being concentratedly overweighted
- Which directions are being systematically underweighted
- Whether institutional holdings are more concentrated or more dispersed
- Whether previously popular directions are still strengthening or beginning to loosen
The goal of this stage is to first see the broad direction clearly.
Step 3: Break down key companies and representative changes
Further focus on the most representative changes in holdings:
- Which companies have been significantly increased
- Which companies have been significantly reduced
- Which changes come from continued additions to existing core positions
- Which changes reflect institutions shifting from old mainlines to new mainlines
Priority should be given to selecting samples that can represent changes in consensus, rather than mechanically listing all names.
Step 4: Distinguish high-conviction repositioning from passive changes
Changes in institutional holdings do not all carry the same meaning, and further judgment is needed:
- Whether they actively express a view, or change passively due to price movements, benchmark adjustments, or liquidity reasons
- Whether additions are accompanied by higher concentration
- Whether reductions represent a weakening view or staged realization
- Whether there is increased divergence among institutions rather than reinforcement of a single consensus
Step 5: Extract implications for industries, themes, and individual stocks
Around the repositioning results, explain:
- Which industries or themes are gaining support from institutional consensus
- Which companies may receive valuation and liquidity support due to institutional increases
- How risk should be assessed if institutions retreat from certain companies
- Which operating or market signals are needed subsequently to verify whether institutional judgments are correct
Step 6: Form the final institutional repositioning insight draft
The final output should help users understand where institutional consensus is heading and how to view these disclosure items. The main text should retain only holdings changes, preference interpretation, limitations explanation, and validation framework.
Output structure
Institutional repositioning insights ({reporting period})
I. 30-second conclusion
- Institutional preference directions this period: {content}
- Most obvious increase-allocation clue: {content}
- Most obvious decrease-allocation clue: {content}
- Current implication: {consensus strengthening / divergence increasing / structural shift}
II. Overall position changes
| Dimension | Current performance | Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Industry level | {content} | {judgment} |
| Style level | {content} | {judgment} |
| Concentration changes | {content} | {judgment} |
III. Key company changes
- Companies with obvious increases in holdings: {content}
- Companies with obvious decreases in holdings: {content}
- Most representative position adjustment action: {content}
IV. Judgment on the nature of position adjustments
- High-conviction active position adjustments: {content}
- Possible passive changes: {content}
- Points of institutional disagreement: {content}
V. Market implications and risk warnings
- Implications for industries/themes: {content}
- Implications for individual stocks: {content}
- Interpretation limitations: {content}
VI. Follow-up observation checklist
- {observation point 1}
- {observation point 2}
- {observation point 3}
Quality requirements
- Institutional holdings analysis must remind about disclosure lag and avoid directly treating historical holdings as current actions.
- It is necessary to distinguish active high-conviction position adjustments from passive changes to improve the credibility of the explanation.
- It must cover all three levels: industry, style, and key individual stocks.
- If there is obvious disagreement among institutions, it should be clearly stated rather than forcibly summarized as a consistent consensus.
- The output should help users understand the migration of institutional preferences, rather than remaining at the level of listing shareholding names.