How can insitutional ownership be over 100%?

Question

looking at both Yahoo's and MSN's profile of the company FLIR, both sites claim that insitutional ownership in the company is at >116-118% !
How is that possible?
I know there's a lag between large mut funds reporting, or is this due to short term trading? Or error on both sites? Any clues?

of shares in the firm are owned by Mutual funds and

Answer 1

this does seem high to me but one reason is short selling. When a stock is sold short the current holder (lender of the shares) still effectivly holds the stock and the entity that buys from the short seller also holds the stock. The short position is not subtracted from the institutional ownership

a company has 100% institutional ownership, some one opens a short position worth 10% of the company selling short to an institutional buyer. The company now has the original 100% institutional ownership plus the new 10% institutional owners so 110% institutional ownership but there is also a 10% short interest which offsets this since it will have to be eventually bought back.

I know this is one reason this happens but I am not sure if their are any others since warrents, rights, and options would not increase ownership above 100% they simply dilute the ownership right of a single share thus the difference between nominal share counts and fully diluted share count.

Answer 2

You actually can legally purchase a weapon in Mexico, however is extremely difficult. It would be like getting a permit to carry a missile in America. You can do it, but it would take you most of your life to get the permit. Yes, the Mexican gun laws have contributed to the current crime problem in Mexico. There is absolutely no resistance from the common person. They have no means of fighting back. Edit: Tribeca the numbers your looking at are misleading. Look up the number of violent crimes committed with anything other than a firearm and you will see a clearer picture. Violence does not cease to exist when guns are removed they simply cease to use guns to perform the violent acts.

Answer 3

1) Those numbers are reported quarterly. There may be some overlap in reporting.
2) Short selling.

Answer 4

That is a good question. Maybe it is due to things such as warrants they hold, or maybe they have written put options, which obligates them to purchase the underlying stock from the buyer of the put option?